DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND 

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 

RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2014 

HEARINGS

BEFORE A 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, AND 

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 

RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa, Chairman

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking 

Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. 

DENA BARON, CHERYLE TUCKER, DOUG DISRUD,

CARL BARRICK, and BRIAN BARNARD,

Subcommittee Staff 

PART 4 

Page

Oversight Hearing: Management Issues at Departments of 

Transportation and Housing and Urban Development ....................... 1

Oversight Hearing: Sandy Disaster Relief and Recovery ....................... 59

Federal Transit Administration ..................................................................... 111

U.S. Department of Transportation .............................................................. 143

Department of Housing and Urban Development .................................... 185

Federal Aviation Administration .................................................................. 239

Federal Railroad Administration .................................................................. 527

Outside Witness Testimony ............................................................................. 565

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

85–070 WASHINGTON : 2013 
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman

C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida 1

FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia 

JACK KINGSTON, Georgia 

RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey 

TOM LATHAM, Iowa 

ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama 

KAY GRANGER, Texas 

MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana 

KEN CALVERT, California 

JO BONNER, Alabama 

TOM COLE, Oklahoma 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

KEVIN YODER, Kansas 

STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas 

ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida 

CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee 

JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington 

DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio 

DAVID G. VALADAO, California 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

—————

1 Chairman Emeritus 

NITA M. LOWEY, New York 

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio 

PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana 

JOSE ́ E. SERRANO, New York 

ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut 

JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia 

ED PASTOR, Arizona 

DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina 

LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California 

SAM FARR, California 

CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania 

SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia 

BARBARA LEE, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

TIM RYAN, Ohio 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

WILLIAM E. SMITH, Clerk and Staff Director 

(II)
(1)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2014 

THURSDAY, MARCH 14, 2013. 

OVERSIGHT HEARING: MANAGEMENT ISSUES AT DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING 

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

WITNESSES

CALVIN SCOVEL III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DAVID MONTOYA, INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING 

AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

MATHEW SCIRE, DIRECTOR, FINANCIAL MARKETS AND COMMUNITY 

INVESTMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

PHILLIP HERR, MANAGING DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. LATHAM. All right, the subcommittee will come to order. And 

we welcome, today, HUD’s Inspector General, David Montoya, 

DOT’s Inspector General, Calvin Scovel, Mathew Scire—am I close? 

Good, good—GAO’s Director of Financial Markets and Community 

Investment, Philip Herr, GAO’s Director of Fiscal Infrastructure. 

The subcommittee looks to your offices for help for us to conduct 

critical oversight to ensure our tax dollars are well-spent, and, actually, go to meet our nation’s housing and transportation needs. 

This oversight is even more important at a time when we must 

shrink the federal budget and deal with our mounting debt. Waste, 

fraud, and abuse should never be tolerated, but this is especially 

true in today’s budget climate. 

We look forward to your testimony today, and we’ll look closely 

for your work to make the tough decisions that will be required as 

we put together this year’s transportation/HUD-funding bill. This 

is our first subcommittee hearing in FY 2014, so we will look forward to your testimony to inform our questions for the cabinet’s 

secretaries when they come. 

I would ask that each of you limit your opening remarks to five 

minutes, and we’ll also limit each round of questions to five minutes.

Before I recognize you for your opening statements, I am pleased 

to finally welcome Mr. Pastor as our new ranking member of the 

subcommittee. I look forward to working with you, in the bipartisan tradition for this subcommittee that funds some of our nation’s most critical infrastructure investments, with an eye towards 

stewardship of the taxpayer’s dollars. 

So, I am honored to recognize you for your opening statement. 
2

Mr. PASTOR. Well, first of all, good morning, Mr. Chairman, and 

good morning to everyone here. Sorry I was a little bit late, but you 

know where I was at, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I also look to work with you this year. I know the subcommittee has been a committee that works in a bipartisan manner, and I expect that we will—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Absolutely. 

Mr. PASTOR [continuing]. Continue to do that. And so I look forward to working with you. 

And I want to thank you for calling this oversight hearing. It 

provides a good opportunity for the subcommittee to examine the 

key management challenges facing the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

Many of the issues are not new to us, whether it’s DOT’s role of 

safety oversight, the FAA’s transition to NextGen, or HUD’s risk 

management FHA. 

This morning, I’m interested in learning how progress can be 

made to address these challenges, especially under the condition of 

sequestration, as it takes hold in each agency. Some management 

issues will require better oversight on the part of DOT and HUD, 

while others will require resources at a time when our budget is 

as tight as it is. 

I look forward to this hearing, and hearing the thoughts of our 

panel.

With that, I turn it back to you, Mr. Chairman, so we can get 

to the testimony, the questions, and thank you for a good day. 

Mr. LATHAM. You bet. Thank you. 

We will begin with HUD’s Inspector General, Mr. Montoya. Your 

full, written statement will be included for the record, and you’re 

recognized for five minutes. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes, sir. Good morning, sir. Thank you. General 

Latham, Ranking Member Pastor, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss HUD’s management challenges, and my office’s oversight of its programs. 

Since becoming Inspector General, I have continued to meet with 

Secretary Donovan and his senior staff on a regular basis to discuss the various management challenges the Department faces, including those I will briefly mention. 

Let me begin with FHA’s mutual mortgage insurance fund capital ratio, which has been below the required two percent level for 

the past four years. And each year has seen a further decline. 

Based on the latest actuarial study, in November 2012, the ratio 

fell below zero, to ¥1.44 percent, which equates to a ¥$16.3 billion 

against an active portfolio of $1.13 trillion. 

While the Department has made changes to address the fund’s 

finances, I would highlight three areas of continued concern. 

First, the FHA actuarial model is complicated, and difficult to 

audit and use for risk management and strategic planning purposes.

Two, we continue to recommend modeling at the midterm or on 

a quarterly basis. 
3

And three, HUD’s unnecessary exposure when paying claims on 

loans that were not qualified for insurance further depletes the 

fund.

FHA remains slow to implement a rigorous claims review process, and, when necessary, going back to the lenders to recover 

losses.

Since Fiscal Year ’01, OIG has annually reported on the lack of 

an integrated financial management system, including the need to 

enhance FHA’s management controls over risk portfolio of integrated insurance and financial systems. Since 2003, HUD has spent more than $35 million, and does not 

have a modern operational core financial system to show for this 

investment. While there are various reasons, such as the complexity and magnitude of the projects that are required to migrate 

to a new financial system, it was a lack of proper project management or mismanagement and not funding, which caused this critical project’s delay. 

HUD’s integrated disbursement and information system, known 

as IDIS, which supports the Office of Community Planning and Development’s formula grant programs, including community development block grant and home programs, continues to be an area of 

distress, as we believe HUD’s design and implementation of IDIS 

is not in compliance with federal financial management systems requirements.

Because we could not come to an agreement on our recommendations, we forwarded our concern to the GAO, who has been reviewing this matter, given the potential wider impact to other agencies. 

A continuing challenge for HUD is its Moving to Work program, 

which has been a demonstration program since approximately 

1999. It provides public housing authorities the opportunity to devise and test innovative, locally-designed strategies that are aimed 

at using federal dollars more effectively. 

However, a 2012 GAO report found that the Moving to Work program guidance does not specify that plans ensure that performance 

is quantifiable and outcome-oriented. 

By not identifying the performance data needed to assess the results of the program, HUD is unable to effectively evaluate the program. HUD has also not developed a systemic way to identify lessons learned, to get the benefit intended and expected from a demonstration program. 

We have disagreed with HUD, who has indicated that it intends 

to expand the number of Moving to Work participants, because of 

my office’s longstanding concerns. 

Because of this, I have launched an initiative designed to compile 

our previous work on problem areas that we and others have reported on over the years, to provide HUD and the Congress a clearer path to correct enduring problems in this area. 

With regard to HUD’s HOME program, our efforts continue to 

focus on problem grantees and connected issues of inadequate controls, not always meeting the objectives of the program to provide 

affordable housing, or not always meeting local building code requirements.

HUD has proposed new rules, which, if implemented, should 

strengthen HUD’s future enforcement authority. In a recent audit, 
4

we concluded that if the new regulations are properly implemented, 

they will address our prior findings in most areas. 

However, in two key areas, oversight of field office monitoring activities and the reliability of data contained in HUD’s IDIS information system, remain open audit recommendations. 

In closing, I would also mention that the Department faces a significant management challenge in monitoring disaster program 

funds, especially in light of the additional work it will have with 

Sandy Disaster Recovery. 

My office is strongly committed to working with the Department 

and Congress to ensure that these important programs operate efficiently and effectively, and as intended by Congress. 

I am happy to answer any questions. 

Thank you. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. Montoya. 

We will now have Mr. Scire, with the five minutes. 

Mr. SCIRE. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Pastor, members of 

the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to be here today, 

to discuss our work on HUD programs, including the FHA mortgage insurance program, and HUD’s voucher and Moving to Work 

programs.

Since 1934, FHA has been an important player in the mortgage 

market, especially for first-time home buyers. FHA insures these 

loans under its mutual mortgage insurance fund. 

Last year, I testified before this subcommittee on the health of 

the fund. Since then, FHA’s independent actuarial review reported 

that the fund’s economic value had become negative, meaning that 

the net present value of future cash flows on outstanding insurance, which were a ¥$47 billion, exceeded the fund’s capital resources.

Needless to say, the fund, once again, has not met the minimum 

two percent capital requirement; the fourth consecutive year this 

has been the case. 

HUD attributes the most recent decline in the fund’s economic 

value to several factors, including changes in expectations for 

house prices, continued declines in interest rates, and changes in 

the model itself. 

HUD recently announced a series of steps it plans to take to 

shore up the fund, including raising premiums, requiring borrowers 

to pay annual premiums for longer periods of time, and reducing 

losses on defaulted mortgages. 

We also note that FHA had previously raised premiums, tightened underwriting, and taken other steps to manage its growing 

workload and improve risk management. 

Further, FHA has enhanced its loan performance model by moving to a technique we recommended, which should result in more 

accurate estimates of the fund’s economic value. 

Nonetheless, there is more that FHA can do. For example, it can 

complete risk assessments of FHA programs, and complete its 

workforce and succession planning, as we recommended. 

There is also more that FHA and the Congress can do in framing 

expectations for FHA going forward. 

Because of concerns about FHA’s financial conditions, the continuing uncertainty over the resolution of Fannie Mae and Freddie 
5

Mac, and the potential impact of their resolution on FHA, we included FHA in our high-risk issue, modernizing the federal role in 

housing finance. 

Let me now turn to our work on the voucher and Moving to Work 

programs. As you know, the voucher program is the single largest 

HUD program for making housing affordable for very low-income 

renters. Last year, it helped 2.2 million such households. We have 

reported that the program’s cost, even after controlling for inflation, had increased 8.8 percent between ’03 and ’10. Almost half of 

this increase was due to issuance of new vouchers; the remaining 

increase is due to increase in subsidy payments and administrative 

fees.

We assess options for cost savings, including reducing subsidies, 

which represent about 90 percent of total costs and administrative 

fees.

These options generally would increase tenant payments; for example, requiring tenants to pay a $75 minimum rent could result 

in either $67 million in cost savings, or serving an additional 8,600 

households. For families with children affected by such a change, 

this would equate to a monthly payment increase of $27. 

Proposals for reforming administrative requirements for the 

voucher program also could lead to increased efficiencies and cost 

savings, though likely not the same scale as subsidy payment reforms. These include conducting inspections or reexamining household income less frequently, and some of these proposals are an 

outgrowth of the Moving to Work program, the MTW program. 

However, our assessment of the MTW program, as the IG just 

mentioned, raises serious questions about HUD’s program evaluation and monitoring. And the IG went into some of the specifics 

there.

Looking ahead, given the demand for most efficiently using limited budgetary resources, it’s critical for HUD to build on its efforts 

to ensure the financial solvency of the FHA insurance fund. At the 

same time, the continuing demand for affordable rental housing for 

households with limited income make more pressing that HUD, 

working with Congress, work to improve efficiency of these programs.

Likewise, you face important policy decisions in terms of framing 

the role that FHA should be expected to play, and in weighing the 

depth of subsidy provided through housing assistance programs 

and the potential impact changes in subsidy may have on individual households and the number of households that may be 

served.

And we look forward to supporting the subcommittee’s efforts in 

this regard. 

This concludes my opening remarks. 

Thank you, again, for the chance to speak today. I would be glad 

to take any questions you may have. 

Mr. LATHAM. Very good. Thank you very much. 

Now we will go to DOT, the Inspector General, Mr. Scovel. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Chairman Latham, Ranking Member Pastor, members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to discuss the 

Department of Transportation’s top management challenges. 
6

DOT spends over $70 billion annually on a wide range of programs, and continues to demonstrate its commitment to ensure 

safe and reliable transportation systems. 

Some of the nine challenges we reported in November are longstanding, while others are new. Today, I will focus on actions DOT 

needs to take to enhance aviation and surface safety, ensure effective stewardship of resources, and effectively implement transportation infrastructure programs. 

Safety is the Department’s top priority. In this past year, FAA 

made important progress toward meeting new safety requirements. 

However, FAA needs to fine-tune how it collects and uses safety 

data to identify operational errors by controllers, and how it addresses pilot safety concerns. 

According to FAA, a 50 percent increase in operational errors reported between Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 was due to new voluntary reporting procedures. Yet, our audit found that there were 

actual increases in errors. 

Without complete and accurate data, FAA is challenged to identify trends and the root causes of errors, and proactively mitigate 

safety risks. 

For pilots, FAA needs to ensure airlines adjust pilot training and 

qualification programs to meet new requirements that will take effect this summer. 

FAA also needs to target aircraft repair stations, based on risk, 

to make the most of its inspector resources. 

Currently, FAA continues to emphasize completing mandatory 

inspections at locations, regardless of risk, and has yet to determine the number of inspectors it needs nationwide, due to an unreliable staffing model. 

In terms of surface safety, DOT has worked hard to remove unsafe commercial drivers and carriers from roadways, and MAP–21 

provides new tools to enhance its efforts, such as giving DOT greater authority to take action against reincarnated carriers—a critical 

safety concern we reported last spring. 

However, MAP–21 also presents new oversight challenges, including the new National Tunnel Inspection Program and new rail 

transit safety oversight responsibilities. 

Turning next to DOT’s stewardship of taxpayer dollars—while 

DOT received a clean opinion on its financial statements for the 

last six years, longstanding financial management weaknesses 

have limited its ability to maximize its return on investments. 

Our review flagged significant inactive grant funds, and prompted DOT to identify over $2 billion that could be applied to active 

projects.

In response to our recommendation, DOT recently issued guidance to improve monitoring of grant obligations. 

Controls over the Department’s contracts and IT investments 

could also be strengthened. Poor contract structure and software 

issues for FAA’s $2.1 billion ERAM program have led to a four-year 

schedule delay, and could result in cost overruns approaching $500 

million.

FAA is working to resolve these programs. 

The Department also needs an Enterprise architecture for its 400-plus IT systems, which cost about $3 billion annually. With an 
7

IT architecture, DOT could realize cost savings, reduce duplication 

and technical risks, and better align IT investments with the Department’s mission. 

DOT plans to issue an Enterprise architecture policy by July. 

DOT also will need to address its information security deficiencies, a material weakness for the last two years. 

Two-thirds of the information security recommendations we have 

made since 2009 have not yet been implemented. 

Our work also highlighted areas where DOT can better safeguard 

investments in key transportation assets. 

For example, DC’s Union Station requires DOT’s attention to 

properly manage mounting debts, and develop new funding 

streams to support needed structural repairs before the station becomes a safety concern. 

Finally, DOT needs to effectively implement transportation infrastructure programs, while protecting its significant investments. 

FAA has not set realistic expectations for modernizing the nation’s air traffic system. FAA spends about $1 billion annually on 

NextGen, and plans to spend $2.4 billion more by 2017 on six programs that are key to NextGen implementation. 

However, FAA has yet to fully develop an integrated master 

schedule for these programs to address risks, make informed cost 

and schedule tradeoffs, and determine what capabilities will provide air space users with the greatest benefits. 

The Department also faces challenges to increase states’ accountability for $40 billion provided annually in highway and bridge investments.

At the same time, it must meet new MAP–21 requirements to deliver highway projects faster, and manage investments in surface 

programs based on performance. 

A new priority for the Department is establishing effective controls over $13 billion in Hurricane Sandy relief funds. Most of 

DOT’s relief funding went to FTA’s public transportation emergency relief program, established last summer through MAP–21. 

FTA needs to get this new program up and running, while also rewarding $2 billion in relief funds by the end of the month—this 

month, Mr. Chairman. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to answer any questions you or members of the subcommittee may have. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Mr. Herr, you are recognized for five minutes on the GAO’s work 

on transportation issues. 

Mr. HERR. Great. Thank you, Chairman Latham. Thank you, 

Ranking Member Pastor and members of the subcommittee. 

I am pleased to be here to discuss GAO’s work on key management challenges facing the Department of Transportation. 

The nation’s transportation system is critical to the economy, and 

affects the daily lives of most Americans. It’s also undergoing 

strain, and cost estimates for repairs and upgrades are in the hundreds of billions of dollars. 

For this reason, surface transportation financing remains on 

GAO’s list of high-risk programs, a report that was just issued last 

month.
8

Today, I will focus on three key challenges facing DOT. First, 

leveraging surface transportation investments to maximize national interests, improving surface and aviation safety, and effectively implementing the NextGeneration air transportation system—or NextGen. 

First, DOT must leverage investment in surface networks to 

meet national goals and priorities. Since I testified on this topic 

last year, there has been progress, as acknowledged by the IG, via 

MAP–21, to clarify federal goals and rules, and require linking federal programs to performance, as GAO has previously recommended.

However, DOT still faces challenges relating to transitioning to 

a goal-oriented performance-based approach which entails new responsibilities, targeting funds to priorities such as the nation’s 

freight network, which will require significant coordination efforts, 

and managing discretionary grant and credit assistance programs—an area both GAO and the IG have highlighted as a challenge.

I would also note emergency relief programs have been a particular challenge over the years for DOT. 

And, finally, overseeing the federal aid highway program, and 

the new Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program, and the 

funds provided after Hurricane Sandy. 

In terms of safety, though we have seen an overall decline in 

traffic fatalities and injuries in recent years, and our nation’s air 

travel system is one of the safest in the world, there are still challenges in this area. 

Our recent work on safety highlights the need for improvement 

in data and oversight, and to better target resources. For example, 

our recent work on chameleon carriers talked about the importance 

of data and analysis that is critical to identify carriers that pose 

the highest safety risks. 

Reliable transit safety data will also be essential for FTA’s new 

oversight program, and data is a vital component of FAA’s new 

risk-based safety management system. 

DOT also faces several key challenges implementing NextGen. 

Delivering and demonstrating benefits such as capabilities that will 

provide operators with a return on their investments and NextGen 

avionics, keeping key acquisitions within cost estimates and on 

schedule—in essence, managing highly interdependent systems, 

and using the best tools and approaches to do so—and keeping 

NextGen on course while sustaining legacy equipment and facilities 

that will continue to be the core of this national airspace system 

for a number of years. 

In summary, DOT’s key challenges are to leverage investments, 

improve safety, and implement NextGen. Addressing them will require collecting and using high-quality data to support performance-based management, as well as making risk-based decisions. 

Also, developing and maintaining robust oversight to operate effectively in a constrained environment, while overseeing a range of 

new and emerging technologies and grant programs. 

And, finally, ensuring clear communication across the operating 

administrations, but also with external partners, Congress, and the 

public.
9

In closing, I would just like to say, thanks for the opportunity to 

be here today, and I am happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you all very much for your opening testimony.

It is not a question, but I just want to kind of make a statement. 

With all we have to cover today, I am not going to go into the subject of airport revenue diversion, but I want to tell you that I continue to have members who are very interested in the subject—in 

particular, with LAX. Just this week, I received another letter of 

concern from two members from California, and it has been an interest and concern from both sides of the aisle; it is not any kind 

of partisan issue. 

As you pointed out, last year—you have done work in this area 

for a long, long time—and especially on LAX. And I know your people are continuing their efforts, and I appreciate that, and I am 

sure that all those members will continue to have their interest— 

and I certainly will, too, to make sure that this is taken care of. 

I don’t know if you have anything to say. There is not a question, 

but I just wanted to make sure that—— 

Mr. SCOVEL. Yes, sir. I want to acknowledge that we do have 

work underway. We anticipate completing it by the end of this 

year. I believe we have kept your staff informed along the way, and 

we are also informing FAA about our findings to make sure that 

we never catch them by surprise on important matters like this. 

Again this is an important issue—certainly for this committee, 

for us, and for the agency. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay, thank you. And another member concern 

here—but, Mr. Scovel, take a moment to also commend you and 

your staff for the MWAA audit this past year. I know Mr. Wolf 

knew something was up. I have to tell you, I never imagined it 

would turn out to be as long and far-reaching an investigation with 

multiple front page stories on the Washington Post. 

How confident are you that the leadership there is effectively 

changing the culture of their operation? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My staff did an outstanding job on that project, and it was virtually an all-hands-ondeck effort in order to get it done. 

We issued a couple of products last year in May and November 

to try to close the loop on as many of the outstanding issues as we 

possibly could, and we understand that there are probably still 

more.

We issued 12 recommendations with numerous subcomponents to 

the Department and to MWAA, the airport authority charged with 

administering Dulles and National. We have kept in frequent touch 

with them. Three of our recommendations are closed; the other 

nine are still open, meaning MWAA and the Department have 

agreed to our recommendations, they have given us a timeline, 

they are on the way toward trying to effect our recommendations 

in matters such as contracting, travel, ethics, governance, transparency, HR resources, hiring, gifts—right across the board that 

you mentioned were the subjects of numerous media stories. 

If you are asking me to give them a grade, of course, I think any 

self-respecting IG would have to say it is incomplete at this point. 

They have signed on to an implementation date of June 30th, 2013, 
10

in order to have things done, to have documentation in place, and 

to supply us with the references we need in order to assess their 

progress.

Right now, I am confident we have their attention. Mr. Potter 

has been in frequent communication with us. I have met with him. 

I have discussed it with the Deputy Secretary and the Secretary. 

The Department has an Accountability Officer in place, and we 

have spoken with her on numerous occasions. March 1st was the 

last face-to-face meeting we had with her. 

So, we have open lines of communication. We are seeing how 

they will do. We will assess their complete performance once we get 

everything back, and we will certainly keep you and Mr. Wolf informed.

Mr. LATHAM. Is there a need for some kind of an oversight board 

or some authority? And, also, are the states inclined to actually 

look into this and do oversight? 

Mr. SCOVEL. I don’t know about the states; they have certainly 

taken a great interest in MWAA’s deficiencies—particularly Virginia, since Dulles and National are both in the state. 

Part of the reason for my hopeful prognosis for MWAA is that 

there have been changes in the composition of the board, and they 

have brought a refreshing new outlook to their weighty responsibilities.

As far as continued oversight, it is clearly needed because when 

we began the MWAA effort, it was clear that MWAA had never— 

or at least in a long time, since GAO last did its study many years 

ago on MWAA’s contracting practices—been used to the kind of 

oversight scrutiny that we were prepared to give and that we give 

to other agencies in our own Department regularly. 

And we encountered a little bit of pushback at first. They corrected their outlook to us. We got what we needed. We were able 

to arrive at the conclusions we did. 

However, human nature being what it is, things tend to unwind 

over time. And while much-needed changes may be put in place in 

response to our recommendations, but if there isn’t continued oversight, those changes may unwind, and things may loosen up to the 

detriment of proper fulfillment of all their responsibilities. 

So, I would say some oversight is needed; whether that is to be 

us, another IG, or some other entity. 

Mr. LATHAM. Authority, some way. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Exactly. Those are policy decisions for the Congress 

and the Department, but we would strongly urge some continued 

oversight of MWAA. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. I failed to mention it earlier, but if GAO has 

any comments on what the Inspector General talks about on any 

of these subjects we cover today, you know, and the other way 

around also—if GAO says something, and you want—I just want 

to get in shortly to the—or briefly to the NextGen. And you talked 

about it in your testimony. 

Really, going more about what the progress that they are doing, 

as far as establishing costs and deadlines, when do they expect to 

deliver a comprehensive plan? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Mr. Chairman, if I were to summarize—our view is 

that planning, on FAA’s part, with regard to NextGen, has rarely 
11

if ever been much of a significant problem. They have been pretty 

good about putting out plans and concepts, and trying to inform the 

Congress and the public of what shape NextGen might take. 

Where there have been significant problems—and continue to 

be—is in the execution of those plans. 

For instance, a NextGen implementation plan update is due out 

this year. Yet, our experience with FAA’s actual use of that plan 

has been that it has been not properly utilized. It hasn’t been the 

most effective tool for FAA to execute, or for the Congress to judge 

FAA’s performance against that plan. 

That led to one of our recommendations a year or two ago for 

what we have come to call an integrated master schedule. Think 

of a whiteboard in a war room, with every NextGen-related program matched up against a timeline. As tasks are completed and, 

even more important, as delays and problems are encountered— 

technical delays, funding delays, or staffing—whatever they might 

be—you can see the ripple effect down the line through NextGen 

because so many of these programs have complex interdependencies.

What happens, for instance, with regard to ERAM? That ripples 

all the way down the line through the rest of NextGen. 

Such a tool, I think, would certainly help FAA, and it may well 

be a very useful insight for the Congress in making its important 

decisions.

Mr. LATHAM. You mentioned a $500 million cost overrun. Last 

year, they were talking about $330 million. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Right. 

Mr. LATHAM. What was changed? Why is it—— 

Mr. SCOVEL. Yes. Specifically, you are referring to the ERAM 

program.

Mr. LATHAM. Right. 

Mr. SCOVEL [continuing]. Which, properly speaking, is not part 

of NextGen; it is a foundation for NextGen. 

Mr. LATHAM. Right. 

Mr. SCOVEL. As you know, ERAM is the automation platform 

that controllers need to use in the 20 en route centers that control 

high-altitude, long-distance air traffic. 

This was a program that was supposed to be completed at the 

end of 2010 for $2.1 billion. Because it is software-intensive, there 

were lots of gremlins and hiccups along the way. FAA had to rebaseline ERAM out to 2014, with what they estimated at the time 

to be a $330 million cost increase. 

Since then, $44 million more have been reprogrammed—with the 

consent of OMB. I am told—from the operations account, specifically to ERAM. So, that puts them up to $374 million. 

Our concern, looking at the burn rate for the ERAM contract— 

which is $12.6 million per month—if that were to continue at that 

same rate through the stated deadline for ERAM of the end of 

2014, that would put them at another $101 million. So, that would 

be $475 million total. 

MITRE, in a study, had estimated as much as $500 million at 

one point. So, we are certainly within the ballpark of $500 million. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Mr. Pastor, did you have any comments on 

that, or—— 
12

Mr. HERR. I was going to note that GAO’s work on NextGen has 

also pointed to the need for cost and schedule risk analysis. 

One thing we have recommended to FAA is adopting the GAO 

cost guide, which is actually a very useful tool, and provides criteria that can be applied to these kinds of programs. DOT and FAA 

are in the process of adopting some of that. 

So, I would second the idea that this kind of thing will give you 

more oversight and more visibility into the progress of the program.

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. PASTOR. Excuse me. A common thread that I found in all 

four of your presentations is that either the inability to collect data, 

or the lack of data, the evaluation of the data, and then using that 

data to improve whatever it may be—whether it be safety, or 

whether it be collecting this, that, and the other. 

And I would ask all four of you to—in looking at these two departments, what generally seems to be the problem? I mean, I 

would think that, by now, they would have, you know, the best 

computers available to them—or whatever—and that they would be 

able to collect the data and do that. 

But all four of you said, whether you were talking about HUD 

or Transportation, is, ‘‘We have problems being able to evaluate, 

because they are not collecting data, or it is inefficient data, or, you 

know, they are not using the data.’’ 

So, if I could just get a general comment on what you have seen 

with these departments, and what keeps them from being able to 

be more effective—and you can start with either end. 

Mr. MONTOYA. Thank you Ranking Member Pastor. With regard 

to HUD, it is twofold. With regard to their financial system that 

they are trying to implement, it is basically a lack of planning, improper planning at the front end before they start spending money, 

the contractors. With regard to the programs, it is really a lack of 

verification of data that is coming in. HUD depends on thousands 

of people downstream to provide them the data, to put the data 

into their systems, but there is no oversight on behalf of HUD to 

ensure that the system is correct going into the system in the first 

place. So we are not sure that we can actually depend on the data. 

There is no verification of the data, if you will. And so that has to 

do a lot with the lack of resources on the part of HUD to do it. So 

their dependence is on these other state and local authorities to do 

that.

Mr. PASTOR. So the lack of resources is to be able to do oversight 

with the contractor at the local level? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Right, right, in a number of ways. For them to actually go into every one of these different entities, to do it themselves, right, what we have struggled with is why they do not at 

least do some sort of systemic sort of method by which they can go 

in and take different organizations to look at, especially those that 

are the most troubled or the ones that we seem to have more problems with, to at least look at those. And just radically go out there 

and look at different various sizes of these organizations to look at 

it. You do not have to look at 100 percent of them, but you should 
13

have some sort of mechanism to be looking at some of them on an 

ongoing basis, and there is not even that going on. 

Mr. PASTOR. So is it the lack of equipment, faulty equipment? 

Are they still using paper and pencil? I mean how would you assess 

the equipment capability that they have? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Well, for us, a lot of their IT infrastructure is very 

old, especially in their financial arena. It is 15 to 30 years old. It 

is Cobol. It is very expensive to upkeep and maintain. So part of 

that is some of these—we had one occasion where we were doing 

an audit and they were not using appropriate electronic accounting 

systems to account for about $2 billion in funds. So a lot of it has 

to do with old aging systems. A lot of it has to do with just not adequate enough, not robust enough, oversight on the part of the staff. 

Mr. SCIRE. Maybe I can join in here. 

Mr. LATHAM. Yes, I would like for you to join the discussion. 

Mr. SCIRE. On the discussion of HUD, I agree with what the Inspector General has said. Some of the comments that I had made 

involving, for example, the Moving to Work program is really a failure to identify the information required to do program evaluation. 

So it could be that HUD is doing a better job in terms of the data 

that is needed for operations than they are for doing program evaluation. So it is difficult to say whether or not because of the poor 

data that FHA is getting in the Moving to Work program, what 

sort of results you are getting. Is it quantifiable? And so that is the 

problem we see within that program. And we see that in other programs.

The other thing I would say in terms of systems that support 

program operations is the importance of requirements definition, in 

really trying to take all the right steps to understand what sort of 

information is required at each of the different levels that are actually operating the program. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Mr. Pastor. I am looking at a list of 

some of our most pressing open recommendations for the Department of Transportation, and several of them do involve data collection, identification of the data, elements that are needed, actually 

collecting it, then investigating to the extent that that is required, 

and actually analyzing it. If I could just mention a couple, one has 

to do with federal highways and how dollars are allocated against 

the need to rehabilitate deficient bridges. Of the six hundred thousand plus bridges in the country, a quarter of those at least are 

deemed to be structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. Yet for 

years, if ever, the Agency and the Congress have never been able 

to determine how many highway or bridge dollars are actually 

going into fixing those deficient bridges. After the I–35W bridge 

collapse in Minneapolis in 2007, I testified at a hearing with the 

then Administrator of FHWA and he was asked that question. He 

testified that he believed that they would, with a very labor-intensive effort that they would, kind of pen-and-pencil kind of effort, 

that they would be able to trace dollars to specific bridges. When 

they went back, they were unable to do it. We audited them and 

found out that they were unable to do it. It has really to do with 

the data elements that are required to be presented by states in 

their highway and bridge projects to the Agency. A deficient bridge, 

typically involves interchanges and ramps and guardrails and ev-
14

erything else. All of that is one big package that in the end they 

are unable to say how many bridge dollars are going to fix that 

bridge structure. FHWA with the help of AASHTO, the state highway, and the transportation association, are trying to refine the 

data elements, press those out to the states so that the states will 

be on the hook to present those up to FHWA and give the Agency 

and the Congress much better insight into bridge expenditures and 

the overall inventory of deficient bridges. That is an example of one 

thing that you are talking about. It is identifying actually what is 

needed and down at the most grassroots level making the changes. 

Another one, though——and I can understand that. But another 

one, which I find more disheartening, is what I would characterize 

almost as an institutional resistance to collecting the data. We 

have made a couple of recommendations to FAA. One was a result 

of an NTSB investigation into the fatal Colgan crash in 2009, 

where a regional aircraft in Buffalo went down killing 50 passengers. Both pilots were found to have been very much fatigued 

by NTSB. Fatigue was not cited as a causal factor, but it was a significant concern mentioned in the NTSB’s final report on that accident. As a result, we were charged with auditing pilot training and 

qualification and a number of other things for FAA. We recommended that FAA begin to collect data through the carriers on 

pilot commuting patterns and trends, so that they could then see 

if there is a link to fatigue. FAA and the industry are reluctant to 

do that. It is deemed to be a benefit of the employment for pilots 

to be able to live on the West Coast, say, where one of the Colgan 

pilots did, and be able to commute back to Newark and carry out 

the job. It happens all the time. Many pilots are commuters; 39 

percent of the Colgan pilots operating out of Newark at the time 

of the crash were commuters of more than 400 miles. It is common 

sense that extensive commuting may lead to fatigue, yet the Safety 

Regulatory Agency is reluctant to press that with the carriers and 

the pilots as a whole. 

Mr. LATHAM. Why. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Um. 

Mr. PASTOR. No, that is fine. 

Mr. SCOVEL. I do not know. I wish I did. Frankly, we tussled. We 

tussled with the Agency on that recommendation because we got 

that pushback. They finally agreed to survey the available data to 

see what may be out there with the view of if there is a gap in the 

data, then they might talk with us further about actually doing 

something.

Mr. PASTOR. Well, I can tell you unequivocally coming from the 

West Coast to the East Coast causes fatigue. 

Mr. HERR. Let me just add to the question. I think the DOT, like 

many agencies, is transitioning from collecting information to having to analyze it and make good use of it. One area that I mentioned in my oral statement is looking at the chameleon carriers. 

These are trucking firms that have been put out of business. They 

come back under another guise. We did some work a few years ago 

looking at how DOT and FMCSA could better target these carriers. 

And the analysis we did was able to identify some of these at-risk 

carriers in a way that I think can show FMCSA a way toward 

making some of those changes. 
15

Another area where data is important, it is right in front of us 

now, is trying to understand bringing drones into the civil airspace. 

One of the things that we highlighted in our statement today is the 

fact that FAA needs information from DoD and other groups like 

DHS that are involved in efforts to understand what some of the 

risks are. And then from that information, use that to develop 

standards in risk profiles. I think it is very important to collect the 

information, but then the next piece is to be able to do the analysis. 

For some of these analyses, like some of the work that we did at 

GAO identifying at-risk carriers in the trucking industry, we had 

Ph.Ds with statistical backgrounds doing that work. It is not just 

punching a few numbers. It actually requires a fair amount of due 

diligence to go through that amount of information, but it is very 

important because it is helping DOT make that link between these 

investments and then the actual performance. 

Mr. PASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, thank all of 

you for being here and your testimony. Let me say upfront, because 

I am going to say a few harsh words, none of them directed at you. 

I kind of think of you as the four good guys that are trying to help 

us deal with our problems and help the agencies manage themselves better, and I appreciate that more than I can say because 

I think those are real problems. And some of the points I am going 

to make I am going to make through you to the Department, certainly not at you. 

And last point, I almost never do prepared statements, but I 

have one issue at least that I want to do that on. And so let me 

just read this for the record. 

HUD Section 184 program supporting mortgages for Native 

Americans. This program is really important to me. Before I was 

in Congress, I actually sat on a Tribally-owned Bank Board and 

saw how important these programs are and how much benefit they 

did. That particular bank, I think, originates more 184 loans than 

any bank in Indian country. It works all across Indian country, not 

just in Oklahoma where I am from. Section 184 loans are often the 

only route open to Native Americans to become homeowners. Unfortunately, HUD and OMB management of the program over the 

last few years has left a great deal to be desired. In the space of 

about 24 months, we have seen the program run out of funds twice 

because of the administrative errors and the elimination of the 

mortgage refinancing component. The most recent funding shortfall, and particularly the reaction of the administration to it, is 

simply unacceptable. Rather than the lenders of an impending 

problem work with borrowers and develop contingency plans, the 

administration simply cut off all funding. This has left dozens, if 

not hundreds, of families around the country in a lurch not because 

of the sequester or any budget woes that we are so familiar with 

in Washington, D.C., but because of what surely looks to me like 

incompetence and simply neglect and indifference. I ask for consent, Mr. Chairman, to submit for the record a few brief summaries 

of the travails of the families in Oklahoma and elsewhere that have 

experienced this. And all the names, all the personal information, 

have been eliminated so the privacy of the people can be protected, 
16

but they are real cases. As these stories detail, real people have 

been left at the altar by HUD in an unfeeling and unwarranted decision-making process that I am told, I hope inaccurately, but I am 

told comes straight from the Office of the Secretary. It is one thing 

to make a mistake and try to correct it. It is another to willfully 

and needlessly harm the very people the Department is charged 

with helping. We would not treat veterans this way. We would not 

treat FHA applicants this way. We certainly should not be treating 

Native Americans in what I consider a rather shoddy and outrageous way. Sorry to be this strong, but I feel really strongly 

about this. 

Two questions, probably most appropriately directed to you, Mr. 

Montoya, but I obviously appreciate any GAO perspective as well. 

What is the Department going to do or is it doing anything to ensure that this never happens again? In particular I am concerned 

about the use of an abrupt cutoff rather than a transition with no 

warning to the lender. People literally have let go of one home, 

have assurance of a guarantee, and then all of a sudden cannot get 

the financing. It is a really bad situation. 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes, sir. Thank you for your question. I will have 

to ask for your forgiveness because I am not well up on this particular issue, but what I will tell you—— 

Mr. COLE. Somebody listening will be though. 

Mr. MONTOYA. Well, I am listening. I am listening. 

Mr. COLE. No, I know you are. 

Mr. MONTOYA. But what I can tell you is that certainly contrary 

to my discussions with the Secretary and with a lot of his senior 

staff is we still deal with the aftermath of the robo-signing or loan 

origination servicing piece where the push for HUD has been to try 

to mitigate and work with these homeowners, giving them advance 

notice, to save the homes, to save the families, and the financial 

burden that they will experience. So, quite frankly, I am concerned 

about what I am hearing, and I certainly will commit to you to get 

back to you once I get back. But outside of that, sir, I cannot give 

you any specifics and I apologize. 

Mr. COLE. That is fair enough. Now I know you will take the 

time and look into it and others will as well. And I would love to 

be wrong, but this is the information that I am getting both from 

families that are dealing with the situation and more importantly 

from people who administer the program through the banking system.

Second question, when you are—— 

Mr. PASTOR. Tom, could I just jump in real quick? 

Mr. COLE. Yeah, please. 

Mr. PASTOR. When the CR was being developed, this issue came 

up. And this anomaly—is that what they called it? And I was concerned like you because obviously we represent in Arizona a number of Native Americans, and I brought up the issue of why this 

was happening. And much to my surprise, I was told that the administration was going to shut it down. But then in continuing to 

want to stay informed, I am told that the Senate has, I guess, corrected it and possibly—but I would agree with you that a program 

like this, you just do not stop midway because there are people who 

are going to be affected and as they are working their way to get-
17

ting a home or whatever they are achieving with this program, just 

to abruptly cut it is the wrong thing to do. And so I join you in 

that because I think that is the wrong way to go. 

Mr. COLE. I appreciate that very much, Ed, and I have heard the 

same thing about the Senate working on it. And we have not seen 

the language yet, but I know there is a serious effort underway. 

But the other thing if you would, Mr. Montoya, when you are 

looking into this, I would love and the GAO as well any recommendations on how or whether the law needs to be changed so 

that, again, Native Americans are not singled out for some different sort of treatment than other loan categories. And, again, I 

do not think we would let this happen to VA loans or FHA loans 

and to me these are all specified categories of borrowers that we 

are doing certain things for. It should not happen here either. It 

ought to be pretty consistent treatment across the board. So if you 

could look into that; and, again, if GAO particularly had any recommendations on what to do, I would love to hear them. 

Mr. SCIRE. If I could just add that we have previously done work 

looking at management of credit programs and the authority levels 

for those and made recommendations about informing the Congress 

and others in sufficient time to be able to provide additional funding, if you will, or to adapt to what is happening with the demand 

for that particular product. That was the case in the HUD Multifamily Loan programs, so I would be glad to work with the Committee on looking more deeply into these questions. 

Mr. COLE. Well, that would be extremely helpful. Mr. Scovel, one 

for you, if you would. And, again, I am using not just parochial, but 

I guess this is my day to be parochial. As you may be aware, the 

state of Oklahoma—and there is no reason why you would be—we 

have six FAA contract towers and three of those are actually in my 

district. And from testimony and reports that the office of the IG 

has done in the past, it is clear to me that you clearly understand 

the cost savings and the value and large impact that these contract 

towers can have. It concerns me the FAA when it made a decision 

as part of the sequester, so I do not want to put this all off on 

them. Let us congressionally take some responsibility here, but 

they shut down as I understand it 78 percent of all the contract 

towers across the country. That seems a really disproportionate hit 

to me on what is supposed to be an across-the-board kind of cut. 

Do you have any sort of rationale or have you looked at this in any 

way where you could explain to us why that decision was made for 

that particular piece of their budget, to take that level of a hit? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Mr. Cole. I do not know that I can go 

all the way to the final answer for your question, but let me tell 

you what we do know. Thank you for your acknowledgement of 

long-term efforts of our office regarding federal contract towers. We 

do know contract towers. We have been doing this work since the 

late 1990s. In fact, when we contacted your office before the hearing today, your staff was kind enough to inform us of your own interest and the fact that you had three federal contract towers facing shutdown in your district. So we were able to pull some numbers on those specific facilities, too. 

We have found—twice in the late 1990s, early 2000s, and in the 

most recent audit that we completed in 2012—that federal contract 
18

towers represent significant cost savings over FAA-operated towers 

with an equivalent level of activity. These are low activity towers 

where we are comparing contract to FAA towers. On average, it 

costs $1.5 million per year less to operate a contract tower than an 

FAA tower. We have said all along the same level of safety, but, 

in fact, our 2012 audit found a lower number and a lower rate of 

safety incidents at federal contract towers than at FAA-operated 

towers. Comparing these for acceptance, virtually transparent to 

the flying community; in fact, we talked to pilots who said, ‘‘You 

know, I cannot tell the difference these days between a contract 

tower and an FAA-operated tower.’’ 

When it comes to sequestration, what we have found—and this 

is not by way of an audit, so I want to qualify my remarks with 

that—it appears to us that when FAA was looking for ways to 

make their target of $637 million cut due to sequestration, they 

were looking to identify and safeguard their core functions. Contract towers they deemed could be an area where cost reduction 

measures could apply. The methodology that they chose was to 

take 150,000 operations, take off one operation per year over 2012, 

and use that as a threshold and match that up against another 

threshold of 10,000 commercial operations—air taxi, air ambulance, 

regional jet, or whatever it might be. Those are commercial operations. Towers, whether they are FAA-operated or contract towers, 

that fell below those thresholds were to be considered for closure. 

It turned out that 189 contract towers, including all three in your 

district and one just outside your district, fell under those thresholds. In addition, 59 FAA-operated contract towers fell below the 

thresholds. A total of 248 towers nationwide are facing closure, and 

61 federal contract towers would survive, making those thresholds. 

That is my understanding of the methodology and the rationale. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SCOVEL. When I look at it and look particularly at the timing 

of decisions and analyses, clearly the earlier you begin planning for 

an event like this, the more options you are going to have. As you 

close in on the deadline, which ultimately turned out to be March 

1, options inevitably fall off the table and you are left sometimes 

with a very bad set of alternatives. That may have been what was 

facing FAA by the time they got late on the calendar. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Ryan. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. You are welcome. 

Mr. RYAN. It is good to be here. Good to be on this Committee. 

Very excited about being with you all. Just quickly from the IG, 

how is sequestration affecting your office and some of the priorities 

that you have had over the last several months and years? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Thank you for the question, Mr. Ryan. With regards to my office, I have been in office for about 15 months now. 

So upon my arrival, we were addressing some concerns this Committee had had about a number of facilities and space issues that 

I had that were quite large. So we have basically spent the last 

year at downsizing the number of facilities we have, the size of 

them, looking at our contracts and cutting back on those, lowering 

our staffing because of supplementals that we had that were going 
19

to be ending in 2012. So we were on a road towards downsizing, 

if you will. 

Mr. RYAN. Where were you when you first got in 15 months ago, 

employment wise? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Employment wise? We had about 712 when I 

came on in December of 2011. Now we are down to about 630. So 

we have come down further than we would have liked. But because 

we knew that sequester was looming and potentially a continuing 

resolution, we elected to go ahead and go below the threshold we 

thought we would be comfortable with our appropriations. And by 

having done that, we are positioned quite well and as of now, we 

do not believe we will have to furlough anyone and will be able to 

keep up with our oversight efforts. Now, that does not come without pain points. I mean we still have lost too many people and so 

that impacts not only the work we are doing on the number of 

issues I mentioned, but, of course, on Sandy oversight and some of 

the remaining disaster monies that were on the Gulf Coast. And, 

quite frankly, disasters will come with the summer months coming. 

So it does not come without its pain points, but I think we are positioned well and we are certainly positioned well enough to get 

through this. And then once we do, then we will hopefully get back 

up to more safer, more normal, numbers for us. But for now, we 

have just been adjusting and prioritizing as necessary, taking those 

things that are more critical first. 

Mr. RYAN. I am new here, so bear with me for a second. So you 

go from 712 to 630. What are the programs that have to go on the 

back burner because of that? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Well, most of my appropriations come in salaries 

and expenses. So really it is bodies because that is what we do. We 

do oversight. So whether it is audits, reviews, evaluations, investigations, that is really what my core mission is, I think for most 

IGs. We have very little money in travel and training and these 

other things. So really for me to cut back to the numbers I need 

to, it has to come from bodies, people. So having done that, really 

what it means that is less audits that will be completed this year, 

certainly prioritizing what—— 

Mr. RYAN. How many less do you think? Ballpark? 

Mr. MONTOYA. I think last year we did about 180 is what we put 

out. We are on path now to put out maybe 140 this year. And a 

lot of that was not just on our downsizing, but it was on the 

amount of work we have been doing on the loan origination loan 

servicing that we saw as the aftermath with the financial crisis. So 

that certainly impacted. Let me correct you. For 2010 and 11—correct myself, excuse me—it was about 196 audits that we had done. 

So for 2013 we are looking at about 140 that we will do. And investigations I could not tell you. What we will do there is just 

prioritize the type of case we will look at. That means sort of the 

lower end type of case we just will not look at or we will give to 

a local authority, and we will look at the higher dollar, more expensive if you will, type of financial fraud that we could see in the Department.

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. Greatly appreciate your interest in how sequestration has affected our office. We are fortunate, like Mr. Montoya, in that we have been taking steps for a 
20

long time now to try to position ourselves, and we do not see the 

need in fiscal year 2013 to furlough any of our staff. 

Here is the situation we were in, and I want to make full disclosure because my office did receive some amount of extra funding 

to carry out our Recovery Act responsibilities, plus we also received 

some extra funding to oversee FTA in their Sandy relief efforts. We 

do have that, but had we not taken the stringent cost reduction 

measures that have been underway in my office now for over 20 

months, we would be facing furloughs this fiscal year. As I mentioned, we will not have to. 

FY 2010 we were at 418 on our staff base budget. Today, the effect of sequestration on our budget has allowed us to staff only to 

373. That is almost an 11 percent reduction in staff over the last 

three fiscal years. Like the office of Mr. Montoya, we are salary 

heavy as well. We do not have hardware. We do not have acquisitions and contracts and programs and grants; 75 percent of my 

budget goes to pay salaries and expenses for our staff. We were 

going to have to take a hit against staff and probably go to furloughs had we not done things like a staff hiring freeze since August 2011. We took that knowing that we were facing a tough situation in fiscal 2012. In August 2011, of course, the Budget Control 

Act passed and we had to plan against the possibility of sequestration. We were well positioned to do that, and we buckled down on 

it.

We reduced our staffing level by letting go our rehired annuitants and term and temporary employees that we had brought on 

for the Recovery Act. We have reduced our footprint, and we let go 

of some leased space, both investigations and audit related, outside 

the Washington area. We have limited our technical expertise contracts. We had a buyout for early retirements and separations in 

the summer of 2012 and shed 14 more staff that way. We suspended our student loan repayment program, which was quite 

modest to begin with. I told my staff we would be recycling paper 

clips before we sent anybody out with no pay due for a low status, 

so the student loan repayment went. We also cancelled our participation in the Department Honors Attorney program and saved 

$95,000. In the view of some, it is not big money, but in the view 

of staff who have to go home perhaps with no pay, that counts. It 

all counts. 

Mr. RYAN. Are there any innovations within both of your offices 

where we could use technology to help cover more ground, where 

you can find some baselines of programs or work that people are 

doing? And then finding through technology or through them having to log in certain numbers, certain variables, that may pop up 

that would say hey, this is a priority or something weird is going 

on over here? I do not know your business well enough to know 

what that even would be, but are we exploring these kinds of options with technology to try and broaden your scope and deepen the 

work that you can do in areas that you would find necessary? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Thank you for the question, Mr. Ryan. It is an excellent question, and I am really glad you asked that. One of the 

first things I did when I came onboard was to look at our data mining analytical capabilities, and we had a limited form of that. And 

what I have done over the last 15 months while we have been 
21

downsizing is some of the critical hires that we have made have 

been in our IT sort of arena. We have hired a statistician. We have 

hired a specialist in data analytics, predictive analytics. I oversee 

a program that is a $40 billion a year program, and so my hope 

is that as we develop the capabilities to do not only data analysis, 

data mining, but to analyze the information. Kind of like what Mr. 

Herr said earlier; it is great to get all this data in, but if you are 

not looking at it, if you are not analyzing it, mining it, seeing what 

it tells you, then it really does not mean anything. So we are on 

a fast pace to be able to do not only the data mining portion of it, 

but the predictive portion. 

Mr. RYAN. Do you do that yourself or do you contract that out? 

Mr. MONTOYA. We have been doing that ourselves. It is far 

cheaper to do it ourselves. And we have specialists that understand 

the programs. They understand the intricacies of how the programs 

work and where the funding comes from and these sorts of things. 

So, quite frankly, to your answer, yes, we are building on our capacity and it is my hope that if we get this right, I do not necessarily need to have another 712 staff, not that I would not deny 

that if you offered it. I am just saying that my hope is that with 

these data analysis predictive capabilities, it sort of drives where 

we need to be, where we need to be looking. And to the extent we 

can do that, we can become a lot sharper at the tip of that spear, 

if you will, to get to where we need to be than to wait for it to happen and then come back in to pick up the pieces if you will. It is 

more of a preventive sort of thing or as one person had said it, it 

is sort of skating to where the puck is going to be, if you are into 

hockey. You want to skate to where the puck is going to be. You 

do not want to really wait until the last second because you are 

never going to get there. So that is what we are focused in on. 

Mr. SCOVEL. We have done some of that as well on the investigation side. We have worked to develop our own predictive data analytic capability, and it has proven to be fruitful for us on investigations.

We have also made good use of what is called the Operations 

Center over at the Recovery Board. They have some very capable 

and sophisticated databases that they were able to mine, not only 

for my office, but for any IG in the community these days. They 

have opened the door for cases and allegations that do not even 

need to be recovery related, but that may help us in the rest of our 

work.

On the audit side, we are able by the nature of our work to do 

less of that. My concern is simply making sure that we are able to 

update the computer systems and connections that we have, particularly between headquarters and the field, so that we are able 

to move back and forth the significant amounts of data that we 

have to in order to bring the analysis to bear on it. My office has 

about two-thirds located in Washington and a third located in field 

offices across the country. To the extent that we can better communicate, it will certainly make for a better product for us. Right now 

we are hampered on the IT front by just the hardware and the 

communications links that are a generation or two behind. 
22

Mr. RYAN. Great, thank you. I will submit a question for the 

record with regard to the pipeline and hazardous material safety 

administration oversight. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. We have totally blown to Hell my 5 minute rule. 

Mr. Quigley. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, Mr. Chairman, when I was lucky enough to be appointed on this Committee, 

I started talking about transportation. And my predecessor put his 

arm around me and said, by region you mean Chicago, right? But 

I am sure he would appreciate my asking you a little bit about the 

oversight of the Federal Railroad Administration on the Railroad 

Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program. I understand 

your office is starting to look at that. They were authorized to provide up to $35 billion in loans and loan guarantees to railroads and 

other entities, and they have gotten less than 5 percent of this 

money out. Could you let us know how a system like Metra who 

is curious about this how your inquiries on this are going? 

Mr. SCOVEL. We will. I’m not in a position to advance a most 

general answer to you at this point. We have just announced an 

audit into the RRIF Program. Your numbers are absolutely right, 

$35 billion authorized, five percent or so actually used by systems 

throughout the country. 

It’s been a point of consternation and concern for the Department 

as well as for the Congress because it’s an avenue to—we hope everyone does—to get money out to systems that can best use it. Yet 

no one has been able to put their finger on why it’s so underutilized. We have a very small team of economists plus some auditors 

in my office who are going to study it and see what the impediments are. What are the reasons why it’s not being used more extensively? We’d be happy to speak with you further, sir. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. If you could, what’s a typical timeframe? Typical’s 

probably a tough word for something like this to be completed? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Sure. We shoot for 10 months. In all candor, we 

rarely make it. Often it’s more 12 to 14 months, but we’ll do all 

we can on this one knowing your interest. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. And I appreciate your following up with us. Let me 

ask Mr. Montoya first about something else, cyber security issues. 

Can you speculate or give us your best information about cyber security issues at HUD? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes, sir. We recently completed an audit of Ginnie 

Mae and just generally some of our other audit work on their IT 

system. And there have been a number of concerns that have been 

raised with just the security of the systems and their oversight. It 

can range anywhere from their failing to lock out an individual 

who’s left the organization, for example, to generally on most computers if you try to log in and you hit the wrong password three 

times it locks you out, well in the case of Ginnie Mae there was 

no such thing. You could have been doing this forever and it would 

never have locked you out. 

So, those types of vulnerabilities we’ve been looking at and recently provided that audit. I specifically have spoken to Ginnie 

Mae’s senior staff about that. Certainly issues that they’re going to 

be looking at. But we have not had any indication that we’ve had 

any serious breaches per se, but there are definitely vulnerabilities 
23

and it all goes back to an earlier statement I made about how poor 

their IT infrastructure is and how old and dated it is and the trouble that they’re having getting this stuff more robust and real time 

if you will. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Scire, do you want to join in on that? 

Mr. SCIRE. We haven’t done any work on cyber security at Ginnie 

Mae.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Okay. Mr. Herr, the same questions that relates in 

your testimony, you talked about the fact that DoT has to improve 

its workforce planning and hiring for cyber security personnel. You 

see this an issue government-wide with your experience? 

Mr. HERR. Yes, our team at GAO that focuses on IT has highlighted this is an issue across government. In the case of DoT in 

particular, they are near the bottom of agencies that OMB ranks 

in terms of compliance with the FISMA standards. That’s a troubling development we’ve seen. I’m happy to follow up if you have 

some additional questions. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you. Any other panelist on the issues of 

cyber security within the realms they cover? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you sir, just very quickly my office does the 

annual FISMA audit for DoT. Mr. Herr is absolutely correct. DoT 

has been near the bottom for a number of years. However, both 

with secretaries and deputy secretaries in the past administration 

and in this one, it’s had their full attention. Their best intentions 

have been largely hamstrung not so much by funding constraints 

but by prioritization. In order to keep systems up and running and 

fully operational on a day-to-day basis, that’s where funds and limited manpower have needed to be prioritized. 

In their estimation cyber security, not only at DoT but across 

government often takes a second row seat. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Priorities aside, why is it so difficult to retain the 

personnel needed? 

Mr. SCOVEL. I speak from experience because last week we lost 

a very capable IT security person who, in fact, went to the private 

sector. That’s where they often go. More flexibility, more money, all 

of those kinds of reasons. To talk about your interest in cyber security, he led our penetration testing of the U.S. Merchant Marine 

Academy, and we found then that the systems that the Academy 

relied on to protect student data, medical data, application data, 

social security numbers, all of that was wide open. We got into it 

within a couple of hours. We presented those results to the Department, and they’re working on fixing it. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Well, thank you all for keeping us up at night. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Quigley. Mr. Joyce, did you have 

any question? I think you’re—— 

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I was wondering as 

far as in a letter sent to Secretary LaHood on March 7th by the 

transportation infrastructure chairman Bill Shuster and Senator 

Thune, it was noted the yearly travel budget for FAA employees is 

approximately $179 million? Could this be an area of potential 

waste?

Mr. SCOVEL. Possibly. I must put that in quotes and italicize it 

because we haven’t audited that. I can’t even verify that that number is correct. I have no reason to believe that it’s not. From my 
24

experience trying to run my own office, which is a vastly different 

kind of operation and a much smaller scale, there are typically cost 

saving measures that can be taken around travel. We’ve put them 

in place to beneficial effect in my operation and that level of scrutiny may well bear fruit for FAA as well. 

Mr. JOYCE. Certainly possibly inefficient at least? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Yes, perhaps. 

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you very much. I think on this round 

we’ve—well, we’re going to quit at least by noon but we will actually enforce the five minute rule on this round, okay? Some really 

good stuff here but I wanted to go to the earlier testimony, Mr. 

Montoya, about FHA and the fact that, you know, they have a negative one point four four percent and you’d said the sixteen point 

three billion negative? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. And you say they’re hard to audit. They 

should have quarterly reports. They’re paying claims that they 

shouldn’t be paying apparently. 

Mr. MONTOYA. Right, sir. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Big question. I mean how soon, are they 

going to have to go the Treasury to ask to get money or? 

Mr. MONTOYA. We won’t know that, sir, until the President puts 

his budget numbers out. So, I couldn’t tell you that. I don’t think 

anybody knows at this point. 

Mr. LATHAM. You have any comment here? 

Mr. SCIRE. We’ll know a lot more when the budget is out though 

we get some indication through the financial statement audit 

which indicates that there would likely be a $16 billion upward reestimate. So, the budget would need to show that the new book of 

business and any policy changes that FHA might implement would 

bring in a similar amount or more. 

Mr. LATHAM. But if it’s hard to audit how are you going to base 

anything on real information, real data? 

Mr. SCIRE. I don’t question that it’s hard to audit. I think that 

the actuarial review actually gives you useful information, what 

they’ve done with the actuarial review in moving toward this technique of stochastic simulation, we think that gives you more accurate estimates of the value of the mutual mortgage insurance fund. 

So, I think that is a real important resource for information about 

where FHA stands and that is what we have right now. It’s telling 

us that considering expectations for loans going forward that the 

fund has a negative value. 

Looking ahead, once the budget is presented then one would 

need to drill into the assumptions that are used for coming up with 

the estimates. Those assumptions are different than what is in the 

actuarial review. And so, that is something that one could definitely take a look at, how reasonable those assumptions might be. 

Mr. LATHAM. You testified about the claims situation. How is this 

happening that they’re paying claims that they shouldn’t? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Well, our concern, much of what we’ve been doing 

with regards to our review of lenders and services and the claims 

that they put in, the falsities they created, it might—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Intentionally? I mean, is fraud? 
25

Mr. MONTOYA. Hard to tell. A lot of it was fraud. Certainly the 

Robo signing piece was fraud where they were signing documents 

that they had not actually overseen or notarizations that they 

weren’t present for, those sorts of things. 

Mr. LATHAM. Have they been referred to criminal? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Most of what we’ve done on those particular 

cases, the Department of Justice hasn’t taken any of those individuals per se criminally. We’ve looked at the company as a whole to 

reclaim some of those monies as we’ve been doing over the last 

year and a half. 

A lot of what we have been doing with regards to reviewing these 

loan files, loan file reviews is what we call them, is really a programmatic issue. And what we’ve been stressing to HUD is that 

they really need to be a lot more robust on this and not just depend 

on the work we’ve been doing. But the reality is the way the FHA 

insurance fund is setup is 100 percent of the claims will get paid 

right after a claim is made. 

So, really in fairness to HUD it’s always an after the fact scenario where they’re coming back to look at the loan file. And if they 

believe that it was poorly underwritten only then do they go back 

after the money. So, it is kind of a catch-22 for them. So, it’s difficult for them but we keep stressing is that they do more of that 

review and kind of along the lines that we did but we used data 

analysis, if you will. 

We used statisticians to pool statistical representations of these 

loans that had gone either into default or to claim to identify a universe, let’s say 100 and then we looked at those. 

So, those kinds of things is what we’re stressing HUD to do and 

it kind of goes along with the question Mr. Ryan asked earlier 

about using data analytics to be able to do this stuff for us. 

Mr. LATHAM. But if you get garbage in I mean, you testified earlier you’re not getting good information to begin with. 

Mr. MONTOYA. Right, right. Correct and that’s the concern. I 

think really from the standpoint of when you have a hundred percent guarantee quite frankly, you’re going to get garbage in because there’s really no financial stake, right, not to make a loan, 

if you will, if you know that on the back end if it goes bad you’re 

going to be made whole. So, that therein lies the inherent problem 

with, I think, that sort of idea. 

Mr. LATHAM. I was handed a piece of paper, four and a half minutes.

Mr. MONTOYA. I’m glad to see, Mr. Chairman, that you as well 

are being held to that. 

Mr. LATHAM. I will stop myself. 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. PASTOR. If you need additional time I’ll use—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Come on! 

Mr. PASTOR. Thank you. Multi-housing Association, one of their 

concerns is as the economy is starting to improve as they see it, 

and now you see the apartments and multi-housing, that that industry is beginning now to show some growth and people want to 

invest and you have—and they’re very concerned about FHA. Not 

so much about the problems you bring to us today but that it continued to exist and be able to participate because in many cases 
26

this is where they’re going for the funding because in the private 

sector either is not lending or is lending at such high fees that it 

makes it unprofitable to— 

And so, they’re worried about the economy and their particular 

industry. And they’re concerned if there is reform, if we do have 

reform in the future where FHA will be. I really couldn’t assure 

them of where it’s going to be but they’re very interested what 

FHA has been able to do and what it can do for their industry. Yet, 

with the problems they have what do you anticipate? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Well, sir, I certainly couldn’t comment on where 

reform will go. 

Mr. PASTOR. Sure. 

Mr. MONTOYA. I’d be as interested in that as anybody. So, it’s 

hard to tell. Quite frankly, FHA is well beyond its original mission 

on the amount of exposure they have. So, my discussions with 

them are as they are pulling back, trying to get back closer to their 

original mission. How that will impact what was available before, 

there will be, I’m sure, some impact. But where the Congress and 

FHA will take reform I couldn’t tell you. 

But I think at the end of the day with FHA pulling back from 

where it is and the sheer size it has become, there are going to be 

impacts to single or multi-family. 

Mr. PASTOR. Probably negative? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Well, you won’t have as much absolutely. 

Mr. SCIRE. What I would point out is that it’s inextricably linked 

with the resolution of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because they 

also serve part of this market. There is also a connection here with 

the low income housing tax credit which is the biggest federal support for production of affordable housing. 

So, I think moving forward and looking at what the role of FHA 

will be, it will be very important to consider the companion roles 

of these other ways of supporting housing finance. 

Mr. PASTOR. In reading your report and I can’t remember which 

one, we talked about the inspectors. The FAA and how we’re contracting more to private companies and the inspectors seem to be 

utilized not as well as it should be in terms of where they’re at and 

what they’re doing. 

In the past we have added more inspectors and we’re not doing 

a good job with what we have. With sequestration coming what do 

you anticipate’s going to happen to this whole safety of the aircraft 

due to the problems it will have to the inspectors? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Mr. Pastor. Certainly this committee 

and the Congress face that dilemma of how much to fund when it 

comes to a priority like safety. Some will say you can never do too 

much. However, in today’s environment, clearly we’re at that place, 

and the Congress needs to look to the Agency to do all that they 

can to use everything that they have already been allocated. 

Our work with regard to FAA and aviation safety inspectors 

shows that the staffing model is not yet a useful tool for driving 

budget and plans. I see your book is open to a graph showing the 

wide fluctuations in the number of recommended staffing positions 

that FAA’s own staffing model has presented it. It’s gone all the 

way from the 300s up to the 900s in the space of about 20 months. 

It’s not because inspectors are walking out the door but rather it’s 
27

some deficiency with the staffing model that FAA and the Volpe 

Center, which produces the model for them, need to work out. 

In the meantime, for you and for my office, it does show that 

those numbers are unreliable. To take that a step further, the 

Agency has not yet taken, fully absorbed, and applied all of our recommendations with respect to basing inspectors’ work assignments 

on the basis of risk and targeting those scarce inspector resources 

to areas where they’re most needed. 

We have an audit underway, and I mentioned it in my opening 

statement, concerning repair stations, both domestic and overseas, 

performing contract maintenance for our airline carriers and the 

degree that FAA applies oversight to those. They’re sending inspectors out on a rote basis. You’ve got to hit every station every year. 

They rarely make that. There’s no effort to quantify and analyze 

the risk that’s presented at specific stations to make sure that they 

get the oversight and the degree of scrutiny that they need. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. Just for the record I will always yield you time, Mr. 

Chairman, when you’re up against the five minute rule. It’s one of 

my jobs. I just have one question, Mr. Montoya. As I’m sure you’re 

probably aware, this Committee has historically been and appropriately been very concerned about unobligated balances in 

NAHASDA, the Indian housing program. And with this fiscal climate that we have now, undoubtedly we’re going to be looking at 

that even more intently. 

As you may be aware, tribes receive their funds through 

NAHASDA generally have a significant amount of bureaucratic red 

tape to go through. They have NEPA statements and compliance, 

environmental impact studies and the like and that’s all before 

they can obligate any funds. At the same time, it appears to me, 

I used to hear a lot about the tribes coming to the office and this 

was their point of view. That HUD takes an inordinate amount of 

time to award the dollars that are part of program. 

HUD just last month, just got around to awarding the fiscal year 

2012 dollars for the program. And that puts the tribes like 18 

months behind the eight ball in terms of being able to move 

through the process in a timely fashion. Do you know or do you, 

have you thought of any reforms that HUD can and should take 

to ensure that there’s a more timely dispersal of the funds and the 

tribes have enough time to plan and actually use the resources 

they’ve been given? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Well, sir, I’ll have to admit to you we’ve not had 

a lot of body of work done in Native American country. And I recognize how important that is. I was with the IG’s office at the Department of the Interior and so very familiar with the Native 

American country. But we haven’t had a lot of work but I’ll tell you 

after having heard your two concerns here today I’m beginning to 

wonder why we haven’t done more work and I’ll be looking to do 

more of that because it sounds like your constituents are bumping 

up against some pretty long waits, if you will, which for me the 

rest of HUD doesn’t seem to be bumping up against. 

So, I will certainly add that to my list of items to look at and 

get back to you, sir. 
28

Mr. COLE. I really, really appreciate certainly seeing a lot of the 

housing on reservations and it’s a very difficult and challenging situation.

Mr. MONTOYA. Yes, sir. I will get back to you. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Cole. Mr. Quigley do you have any 

questions?

Mr. QUIGLEY. No, sir. 

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Joyce? Okay. Mr. Herr, earlier you talked 

about the unmanned aircraft systems and the challenge that has 

for the FAA. And they’re supposed to be integrated into the system, 

national system by 2015, is that correct? 

Mr. HERR. Yes. 

Mr. LATHAM. Do you know—noted they’re challenged in this effort by limitations and its ability to share data with the DoD? 

Mr. HERR. Correct. 

Mr. LATHAM. It’s got to be a high priority both for the research 

and commercial airspace industry. Can you elaborate as far as the 

data challenges that they face and maybe suggest ways that they 

could improve access to the processing of the data. 

Mr. HERR. Yes. Thanks for the question. It terms of this issue 

it’s FAA getting data from DoD in particular. And what we found 

in some earlier work was that there was a, for lack of a better 

word, data dump. They were given a lot of information by DoD. It 

wasn’t necessarily readily usable by FAA to help make some of the 

determinations about safety and performance. 

My understanding is they’ve entered into an MOU now with DoD 

and have brought in a contractor so they can help have a better 

sense of data needs. MITRE is the contractor to do the work, and 

identify some of the key data fields. From that, it’ll be important 

to develop the standards, procedures, rules and then roll that out, 

train the controllers and also do certifications as warranted for the 

people that will be operating these. Then, hopefully have it ready 

for the next steps. 

Mr. LATHAM. It’s going to take a multi-Agency effort with FAA, 

the DoD, DHS. Do they have the organizational leadership structure in place to do this? 

Mr. HERR. A lot of this is being done out of their joint planning 

and development office, which we refer to as JPDO. What my colleagues who that focused on this work at GAO have reminded me 

is that they’re focused on the safety side, the avionics. But I think 

that as Mr. Pastor mentioned when he came in in a light comment 

about the drones, there’s a lot of other concerns beyond just the integration into the civil airspace that is part of this. 

FAA has its piece but it’s also going to be challenged to work 

with these different parties. I think consistent with the conversation we had earlier about demonstrating progress, there are also 

milestones in the FAA re-authorization bill that they still are working to meet. And they need to be doing that in a timely way as 

well.

Mr. LATHAM. Okay, thank you. Mr. Scovel, do you think they 

have the proper organizational structures in place to meet the 

mandate and then also have you identified any weak links or 

vulnerabilities that they have? 
29

Mr. SCOVEL. Organizational structures as the Committee well 

knows, FAA has established a UAS integration office. It’s tasked 

with pulling together air traffic equities in this matter as well as 

flight standards, meaning aircraft certification, pilot training and 

medical concerns. As the Committee’s hired skeptic, we’ll have to 

say the jury’s still out on how well this integration office will function.

We have seen FAA struggle in the past particularly in the 

NextGen area where interests of air traffic, flight standards and 

airports have all needed to be woven together. Whether it’s been 

under the JPDO or under the newer organization that FAA still is 

putting into place, it hasn’t been fully successful. I think we have 

to hang a question mark yet on whether this integration office can 

actually do it. 

To follow up on Mr. Herr’s observation that FAA’s interest is 

safety and efficiency of the NAS in many respects: in the past, FAA 

has been quite good at that. Yet this is an entirely different beast 

when we encounter UAS integration because of the privacy interests. Everybody recognizes that there is potential for this country 

economically speaking. My numbers show perhaps $89 billion in 

the industry over the next 10 years, thousands of jobs. It’s a race 

that’s ours to lose at this point because we’re that far ahead with 

the military aspects of UAS technology. Yet on the civilian side it’s 

much different when we see filibusters in the Senate, and we see 

communities right here in Virginia legislating, attempting to ban 

drones in that community’s airspace. FAA is going to have to wrestle with all of that, and they’re not well-equipped to do that right 

now. It’s reflected in the fact that in the solicitation that they sent 

as invitations to participate in the six test site areas. They inquired 

of the applicants, ‘‘Tell us what you think your priority or your privacy measures ought to be.’’ 

Rather than stating that as a requirement up front, they’re looking to get all the input they can, which is not a bad strategy given 

the dearth of experience and expertise that exists in FAA on this 

point right now. 

Mr. HERR. Mr. Scovel’s comment prompted me to remember another point. They were looking up to staff up the office, our understanding is they have about 20 people in the UAS office. So, they 

were just beginning to get the people involved. So, it’s a long term 

effort.

Mr. LATHAM. You are not instilling confidence. Mr. Pastor? 

Mr. PASTOR. Well, I’m going to go and just ask a question on 

TGen. I think I’ve been living with TGen now for about eight years 

I guess. And I guess it was moving forward but de ́ja` vu all over 

again, they have the problems. Now we have the sequester and the 

capital program will be reduced by $137 million. 

Obviously, that’s going to have ramifications and what do you 

project some of the problems it’s going to cause as we try to develop 

this system and get it in place one of these days? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thanks, Mr. Pastor. It will have ramifications in the 

development of some of these capital projects that are part of 

NextGen or closely allied to it by way of foundational programs. 

While we can safely say it will have effects because of gaps in 

FAA’s ability to project those effects down the line of NextGen pro-
30

grams all the way to full program implementation, I don’t know 

that we or FAA can say exactly at this point. 

This would get me back to a point that I made earlier about the 

value of our integrated master schedule recommendation to FAA 

and to the Congress. When events like sequestration come up and 

cuts needs to be made to specific programs or there are technical 

difficulties that become an impediment to quicker execution of a 

program, FAA is unable to see how that will influence the timing 

and sequence down the line. A master schedule may well help them 

do that. 

FAA, to be totally fair to the Agency, has accepted that recommendation. They have embraced it and they are working to 

produce that master schedule by the end of this year. 

Mr. PASTOR. What is the probability that they’re going to have 

it done? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Fair at this point. I’d say at least 50/50. 

Mr. PASTOR. So, that probably means it’s not going to get done. 

Mr. SCOVEL. I can’t prejudge as the IG, even as the hired skeptic. 

Mr. LATHAM. If you say 50/50 that looks pretty darn—— 

Mr. PASTOR. That’s pretty darn good by our experience for sure. 

You know, I remember when this whole thing got started we were 

going to be working with NASA and bringing in the airlines and 

we had the air traffic controllers and everybody going’s to be involved. And then we were having problems coordinating it and 

then it just got further and further behind. In your opinion, what 

is the status of it today? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Of NextGen? 

Mr. PASTOR. NextGen. 

Mr. SCOVEL. ERAM, for instance, is going to get done by the end 

of 2014. 

Mr. PASTOR. Four years late? 

Mr. SCOVEL. It will be four years late at that point. It won’t be 

the same ERAM that was advertised to be completed at the end 

of 2010. It’ll be a somewhat reduced and shrunken version of 

ERAM. It’ll need to be plussed up with technological improvements 

for the rest of the decade at least and probably into the ’20s. 

Other programs haven’t been fully fleshed out by FAA yet. Programs like terminal modernization, ADS–B, SWIM, and 

DataComm have been identified in segments and funded and 

baselined in smaller segments, which gives us some assurance that 

at least that segment may stand a chance of getting done on time. 

However, they haven’t projected what the programs will deliver all 

the way, and they haven’t linked it all together in terms of timing 

and sequence yet. 

You’ll remember, sir, FAA’s original prediction was that NextGen 

would be complete, bought and paid for—$20 billion for government, $20 billion for the industry—by 2025. This is not going to 

happen. It’s going to be 2035 perhaps. Our estimate and other 

knowledgeable sources say 2035 at the earliest and perhaps after 

that and cost figures double or triple the original $20 billion for 

government.

Mr. HERR. I would just underscore the importance of these integrated plans. There are tools to help manage these complex systems and looking at the risk and cost analysis is an important way 
31

that agencies like FAA can better manage the risks of these kind 

of purchases. The dollars are big, and it gives rise to some of the 

terms people use, ForeverGen not NextGen because the timeline is 

so long, which I think is unfortunate. Mr. Scovel referenced the 

timeline that his office is considering. These are complex endeavors 

but they’re also having to maintain the existing infrastructure 

while this is rolling out. 

One of the things I identified in my statement is a $310 million 

backlog in maintenance for these older facilities. You’re going to 

start to get into the position of having to maintain these old radar 

systems. We’re going to maintain these old buildings until NextGen 

happens. Those are good, important oversight questions for your 

committee.

Mr. LATHAM. I’m going to enforce the one minute rule on you. 

And I would invite everyone, you know if you have more questions 

submit them and we’d appreciate very much your response to 

those. The NextGen thing I’d go back, if I’m not mistaken the Bush 

Administration when they shut out basically the air traffic controllers from any part of input on the system I think delayed the whole 

thing a lot. And it really got off to a rocky start because they didn’t 

include the people who were going to be running the system and 

the experts in the system. 

Mr. PASTOR. You remember though right in the middle of a contract negotiation, remember they were having those—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Right. Let me just say thank you for the great job 

that you all do for us and we want to continue to rely on your expertise and your great work in the communications. 

Okay, one question, for each of you very briefly, is there anything 

in each of your Departments that you see as a potential problem 

that nobody is looking at today? 

Mr. MONTOYA. That no one’s looking at? 

Mr. LATHAM. That no one’s even thought about. I mean are you 

concerned that there’s something, see signs of something popping 

up here? 

Mr. MONTOYA. Yeah, I’d be afraid of what I don’t know. No, I 

don’t know that the problems, the major issues that we have we 

haven’t already teed up. Part of what I think my data analytics, 

predictive analytics capability will do is hopefully find those anomalies that none of us ever knew about. So, that’s really my hope 

with where we’re going with our IT oversight capability, sir. Thank 

you.

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Mr. Herr. 

Mr. HERR. The area that’s not hidden but it’s one topic I mentioned in my oral statement that’s on our high risk list: surface 

transportation financing. We’ve had the Federal Gas Tax at the 

same level since 1993. It’s well-known we’re looking to go to the 

General Fund. It makes it very difficult to fund infrastructure with 

this kind of arrangement and so, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention 

that issue as it’s something we highlight. 

Mr. LATHAM. I don’t think anybody knew that that was an issue. 

Mr. HERR. Well, it’s not a hidden issue but it’s also one that—— 

Mr. LATHAM. It’s absolutely critical and we got to find an answer 

to it. 
32

Mr. SCIRE. Yes, I would just highlight two. They are known but 

they’re very important issues that really need resolution. One that 

we highlight in our high risk update is modernization of the housing finance system. And so, there’s still a lot of work yet to be done 

to figure out where we’ll end up at the end of the day. 

The other is, and we do highlight this, is the idea of overlap fragmentation and duplication across the various tools that the federal 

government uses to support housing. From tax expenditures to 

grants to loans and so forth and I know there’s been some attempt 

here particularly in the multi-family arena to try to bring together 

and to make more uniform some of the requirements that all the 

different programs operate under. But we think there’s more that 

can be done. And there’s a lot more that can be done in the single 

family arena in trying to look for opportunities for consolidation 

across agencies. 

Mr. LATHAM. You’ve transmitted those suggestions or you’re—— 

Mr. SCIRE. Yes, we have and I’d be glad to provide those. 

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-554.

Mr. LATHAM. Authorizers and everything also? 

Mr. SCIRE. Yes. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Yes. You have the last word. 

Mr. SCOVEL. I will try to keep it short. Really nothing new. Surface financing and cyber security haven’t been mentioned, but 

those are perennial concerns. I’m with Mr. Montoya. I worry about 

what I don’t know. 

Mr. LATHAM. Right. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Because the question always is, testifying before 

any committee, ‘‘Mr. IG, where were you on this?’’ When we’re unable to get to it, that’s what keeps me up at night. 

Mr. LATHAM. Very good. I appreciate your testimony and we will 

be in touch and keep up the great work. Thank you. Adjourned. 
33

Ranking Member Pastor Questions for the Record 

Asked of the Honorable Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General, DOT 

House THUD Subcommittee Oversight Hearing on Management Issues at DOT and HUD 

March 14, 2013 

FAA's Progress on NextGen 

1. Ouestion: Under sequestration, FAA's capital program will be reduced by $137 million. 

ERAM will continue to be a priority but what other NextGen programs will be at risk for 

delay under these reducedfunding levels? 

Answer: It is unclear what the impacts of sequestration will be on NextGen programs. 

We are not in position to give an assessment because FAA is still working out the details 

of how programs will be impacted in fiscal year 2013 or beyond. According to FAA 

officials, FAA will protect key NextGen programs that have been formally baselined, 

such as the Automatic Dependence Surveillance-Broadcast, System Wide Infrastructure 

Management, and the initial stage of Data Communications (DataComm). The Agency 

will also protect foundational programs such as En Route Automation Modernization 

(ERAM). However, reductions in funding will likely delay some efforts such as the 

integration of airport surface surveillance systems, future ERAM software releases, and 

the more beneficial elements of DataComm targeted for the high altitude environment. 

2. Ouestion: A key component (J{ NextGen is the development of new procedures that will 

provide more efficient departures and arrivals into airports. In your view, is FAA doing 

an effective job at implementing these procedures at critical airports? 

Answer: FAA is making progress in developing and implementing new performancebased navigation (PBN) procedures at critical airports, but challenges remain. F 1\1\ has 

important PBN efforts underway that focus on achieving bencfits, such as its metroplex 

initiative (a 7-year effort to improve the flow of traffic and efficiency at congested 

airports in 13 major metropolitan areas) and the "Greener Skies Over Seattle" project. 

However, it is uncertain when airspace users will see widespread and expected benefits. 

While FAA has completed studies or performed procedure design work at 8 of the 13 

metroplex locations, it has only begun the implementation phase for 1 location (Houston). 

Additionally. many airspace users that are equipped with advanced avionics would like 

more advanced PBN procedures than FAA's current metroplex efforts providespecifically, those that regularly allow for more precise and curved approaches to airport 

runways. This remains a key issue. 

To realize the benefits of PBN, FAA must address a number of obstacles. These include 

streamlining its processes for developing new procedures, updating controller policies 

and procedures, and introducing new automated tools to allow controllers to sequence 

and merge aircraft in a mixed equipage environment. 
34

Ranking Member Pastor Questions for the Record 

Asked of the Honorable Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General, DOT 

House THUD Subcommittee Oversight Hearing on Management Issues at DOT and HUD 

March 14, 2013 

Transportation Safety Oversight 

1. Question: The FAA Authorization bill required your office to review FAA's new 

controller scheduling practices. What have you learned from your assessment so jar? 

Answer: As you know, we are currently conducting a review of the impact that FAA' s 

new controller scheduling policies have on controller performance, safety. and the 

Agency's operating costs. Scientific research shows that air traffic controller scheduling 

practices impact controller performance. Controllers generally work rotating schedules 

during which the start and stop times vary between day, evening, and night times, whieh 

leads to fatigue. However, we could not determine the extent to which FAA's new 

scheduling policies specifically impact controller fatigue because the Agency does not 

measure the effect of its scheduling practices on the controller workforce. Furthermore, 

ongoing fatigue research may prompt additional changes to FAA's scheduling practices 

to mitigate fatigue. 

While most of FAA's new controller scheduling policies have not significantly affected 

costs, our ongoing work indicates the Agency could realize some cost savings through 

better scheduling. For example, 72 facilities that do not meet the Agency's minimum 

traffic guidelines for continuous overnight operations continue to have a minimum of two 

controllers during midnight shifts. Reducing services at these facilities during a portion of 

or the entire midnight shift could reduce Agency operating costs. However, FAA has not 

yet calculated the potential savings. We expect to report on our review of FAA's 

controller scheduling later this year. 

2. Question: Sequestration requires FAA to implement 11 days offitrloughs across its entire 

workforce; won't FAA's controller scheduling efforts be even more complicated? 

Answer: Yes, implementing furlough days will make FAA's controller scheduling 

efforts more complicated, This is particularly the case at some of FAA's largest and 

busiest facilities, including those in New York, Chicago, and Atlanta, However, we have 

not analyzed the impact that any sequestration actions would have on air traffic controller 

scheduling practices or the impacts to the National Airspace System, 
35

Ranking Member Pastor Questions for the Record 

Asked of the Honorable Calvin l. Scovel III, Inspector General, DOT 

House THUD Subcommittee Oversight Hearing on Management Issues at DOT and HUD 

March 14, 2013 

Recoveries and Civil Money Penalties 

1. Question: In each of the pastfive years, how much money have you recovered in civil 

money penalties, settlements or other recoveries? 

Answer: Over the past five years we have had a total of $393 million in civil recoveries. 

The table below reflects the amount of civil recoveries secured in each of the five years. 

FY2008 $290,001,722 

FY2009 $46,4 73,000 

FY2010 $14.384,356 

FY2011 $30,765,214 

FY2012 $9,510,617 

FY2013 (YTD) $1,402,880 

2. Question: How many cases were involved? 

Answer: The civil recoveries listed above were derived from 38 cases. 

3. Question: How many of the cases originated under the False Claims Act? 

Answer: From the 38 cases mentioned above, 28 of those cases involved the False 

Claims Act. 

4. Question: How many cases originatedfrom your office? 

Answer: All but 6 of the 38 cases originated from our otlice. The aforementioned six 

cases were opened based on Qui Tam complaints. 
36

Congresswoman Granger Questions for the Record 

Asked of the Honorable Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General, DOT 

House THUD Subcommittee Oversight Hearing on Management Issues at DOT and HUO 

March 14, 2013 

Question: Last year, Congress passed MAP-2 1, which streamlined many of the programs 

that fall under the jurisdiction of DOT. According to your testimony, the Federal 

Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration face challenges in 

implementing changes to these programs - especially how they relatc to the State and 

Department's interaction over major infrastructure projects. The ultimate goal is for DOT 

to move away from process-driven goals toward more performance-based measures that 

are outcome-orientcd for highway and transit programs. First, can you providc this 

Committee with an update on how this transition process is going? Second, what is the 

time line for completion of this transition? 

Answer: The Department of Transportation (DOT) and its major surface transportation 

modes-the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA)-have been working to implement various Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act requirements. However, more work rcmains 

to achieve MAP-21's goals for streamlining programs, expediting project delivery, and 

moving toward more performance-based investments. Thc Office of Inspector General 

has been proactive in initiating audits to evaluate the Department's implementation of 

MAP-21 and planning audits that are appropriately timed to coincide with various MAP21 deadlines. Because DOT is in thc early stages of addressing MAP-2l requirements 

with varying time frames for completion, assessing the status of planned actions is 

challenging. In some cases, it would be premature for us to audit initiatives that arc just 

under development and those that will take some time to be fully implemented, such as 

increased use of performance measures. 

We recently completed and have ongoing or planned work related to: 

• Performance-based investments. We recently reported I on actions that FHWA 

could take to improve its Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), which 

requires States to use safety data to select projects and develop perfonnance-based 

programs. To assess the safety impact of Federal highway funds, FHW A could 

better use the data that States provide in their annual HSIP reports with new 

information being developed on MAP-21 perfonnanee targets. In our longer term 

audit plans for MAP-21, we wit! evaluate FHW A's efforts to collect data to assess 

progress toward new national safety goals and related performance measures. 

• Project delivery reforms. We have work underway to assess DOT's early efforts to 

implement MAP-21's Subtitle C,2 which requires it to identifY and promote 

reforms that will reduce the time and money required to plan, design, and 

I OIG Report Number MH-2013-055, "FIIWA Provides Sufficient Guidance and Assistance To Implement the 

Highway Safety Improvement Program but Could Do More To Assess Program Results;' March 26, 2013. 

2 OIG Project Number 12MJ~~Th1PJl.Q, "Audit of the Department of Transportation's Implementation of MAP-21 

Acceleration of Project Delivery Provisions." November 28,2012. 
37

Congresswoman Granger Questions for the Record 

Asked of the Honorable Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General, DOT 

House THUD Subcommittee Oversight Hearing on Management Issues at DOT and HUO 

March 14, 2013 

construct projects. We are proactively assessing DOT's plans and progress in 

developing related regulations, guidance, and reports. We have also identified 

challenges to the timely completion of DOT's plans. We plan to issue a report 

later this spring. As requircd by MAP-21. we will periodically report to Congress 

on DOT's progress and provide a final report within four years of enactment. 

• FHWA's operational efficiency. We have work underway to review FHWA's 

efforts to improve operational cfficiency.3 Congress and the Administration asked 

Federal agencies to improve accountability in their operations, ensure efficient use 

of resources in a tight fiscal environment. and position themselves to meet new 

legislative requirements, such as the program consolidations that MAP-21 

requires. In its strategic plan, FHW A emphasizes the need to ensure organizational 

resources are optimally deployed. We are currently reviewing the status of actions 

FHW A has taken or planned to ensure that agency resources are efficiently used to 

meet current and future missions-with an emphasis on actions FHWA has taken 

to conduct workforce planning and assessments. 

We would be happy to brief you or your staff on the results of our completed work and 

the status of ongoing and planned audits. If you have any questions, please feel free to 

contact Joseph W. Come, Assistant Inspector General for Highway and Transit Audits, 

on (202) 366-5630, or Joseph.W.Comc({voig.dot.gov. 

} OIG Project Number I3M3003~IO_QQ. "Audit of the Federal Highway Administration's Efforts To Improve 

Operational Efficiency," January 14,2013. 

2 
38

Congresswoman Herrera Beutler Questions for the Record 

Asked of the Honorable Calvin l. Scovel III, Inspector General, DOT 

House THUD Subcommittee Oversight Hearing on Management Issues at DOT and HUD 

March 14, 2013 

Mr. Scovel. I have a few questions for you in regards to the Disadvantaged Business 

Enterprise (DBE) program. U.S. DOT, and more specifically the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA), are responsible for overseeing state recipients' certification and 

implementation of the DBE program. Specifically, FHW A is responsible for overseeing 

how state DOTs implement the DBE program on federal-aid highway projects and 

whether state DOTs comply with the requirements set forth in statute and U.S. DOT's 

regulations. 

As you know, U.S. DOT requires DBEs to be certified in each state where they want to 

bid on or participate in U.S. DOT assisted contracts. FIIWA has identified the DBE 

program as a risk area for a number of reasons, including the potential for fraud and 

abuse, as well as improper program implementation. Fraud in the DBE program has been 

a concern for years, and accountability measures have been put in place over the last few 

years. Howcver fraud continues in the program, and is occurring in the Washington State 

DBE program. 

Multiplc business owners filed mislcading or false applications in order to win lucrative 

transportation contracts through Washington State's DBE program. Some of the 

contracted businesses weren't disadvantaged at all. Yet a loophole in federal law allows 

businesses disqualified from the DBE program for cheating the system to continue work 

on federally-funded transportation projects and get paid for it. 

Given FHWA's role in overseeing the state DOT's implementation ofthe DBE program. 

Mr. Scovel could you answer the following questions: 

Ouestion: What is DOT OIG doing to ensure that DOT oversight of DBE 

certification is being executed in accordance with applicable regulations, so that 

fraud is not being committed in the certification process? 

Answer: 

We just completed an audit report of the DOT's DBE Program on April 25, with the 

objective of determining whether the program is being effectively managed and enforced 

at the Department, Operating Administration (OA), and recipient State and local level. (A 

copy of the report can be found at http://www.oig.dot.gov/librarv-item/6101) The 

Department places the responsibility for implementation of the program, including the 

certification process, on the recipicnts such as State highway agencies, airports, and 

transit agencies. The individual OAs within DOT who distribute the federal funds are 

responsible for overseeing their recipients to ensure compliance with the Department's 

regulatory program. Our audit findings identified weaknesses in the OAs oversight of its 

recipients and consequently, in recipients' certification practices, which increases the risk 
39

Congresswoman Herrera Beutler Questions for the Record 

Asked of the Honorable Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General, DOT 

House THUD Subcommittee Oversight Hearing on Management Issues at DOT and HUD 

March 14, 2013 

of regulatory non-compliance and potential fraud. Our review found that the Department 

needs to provide more comprehensive and standardized training and guidance to the 

recipients for implementing the program, especially regarding aspects of the certification 

process. 

Therefore, we requestcd that the Department develop an oversight and compliance plan 

with the OAs which must idcntity and document the minimum oversight requirements 

and specific actions OAs must take when overseeing the certification process. 

Additionally, we havc requested that the Department identity the specific actions the 

Department's Office of Civil Rights (DOCR) must take to fulfill its delegated 

responsibility to periodically evaluate the OA's enforcement and implementation of the 

program. We also have requested that the Dcpartment provide their newly implemented 

(February 2013) certification training to all staff involved in the DBE Program, and that 

DOT post the training materials on its DBE website to allow universal access to the 

guidance. We further requested that the training be enhanced by including guidance on 

performing oversight at DBE construction sites. 

Currently, DBE fraud cases represent 32 percent of IO investigators active procurement 

and grant fraud investigations. In addition to grant and procurement fraud casework the 

TO investigators also engage in proactive efforts through the conduct of fraud awareness 

and prevention presentations. Those presentations include red flag indicators of 

fraudulent DBE activity, which should help the Department and its grantees identify 

fraud while conducting their oversight responsibilities. 

Question: Is DOT's level of oversight of the DBE program sufficient? 

Answer: 

Our report found that DOT's oversight of thc DRE Program is insufficient and did not 

ensure that recipients effectively implement the program. The OAs are responsible for 

conducting oversight; however, each OA uses different practices to oversee the 

recipients' OBE programs. Our audit found insufficient numbers of oversight reviews are 

being completed for the size of the program. For example, FAA only completed 7 

compliance reviews in 2011, even though FAA had about 1,000 OBE recipients, while 

FTA only completed 13 compliance reviews even though it has about 600 recipients. In 

addition. the compliance reviews did not include a comprehensive or detailed review of 

the program. For example, the reviews generally excluded on-site project visits and 

frequently involved few or no certification tile reviews. While FH W A Division Offices 

conduct oversight using a risk-based approach; FHWA has not established minimum 

requirements for its reviews and many divisions rated OBE as having low risk for fraud 

and abuse. 
40

Congresswoman Herrera Beutler Questions for the Record 

Asked of the Honorable Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General, DOT 

House THUD Subcommittee Oversight Hearing on Management Issues at DOT and HUD 

March 14, 2013 

Question: What does DOT DIG recommend be done by DOT and its Operating 

Administrations (OA) to improve the accuracy of certifications of DBEs? 

Answer: 

Our audit report did not make specific recommendations addressing how DOT could 

improve the accuracy of the DBE certifications. As mentioned, we are requesting the 

Department develop an oversight and compliance plan with the OAs which must identify 

and document the minimum oversight requirements and specific actions OAs must take 

when overseeing the certification process. These minimum procedures must involve steps 

to assess the States' certification practices and files, since our audit found OA's oversight 

practices rarely include a review of the recipients' certification processes and ccrtification 

tiles. Additionally, we have requested that the Department post the material of its newly 

initiated (February 2013) certification training program on its DBE wcbsite for all to 

access and referencc for guidance at any time. This will allow standard reference material 

for staff to refresh their memory and clarify what they learned in the training, and provide 

newly hired DBE staff that has not taken the training with the same standard guidance. 

Question: How effective has the National DBE Program Manager been? 

Answer: 

Our audit did not specifically review the effectiveness of FHWA's National DBE 

Program Manager. FHW A hired a National DBE Program Manager in 2010 and she is 

the only FHW A's Headquarters' staff member that is entirely devoted to the DBE 

program. While we did not specifically look at the effectiveness of this individual's role. 

our audit did identify weaknesses in the effectiveness of program oversight carried out by 

all the ~As. FHW A performs DBE program oversight at the individual State Division 

Ot1ices based on a risk assessment approach. However, our audit found that some states 

determined DBE risk as "low". and that Division oversight practices often did not include 

certification tiles reviews or visits to project worksites where DBE fraud may be more 

readily uncovered. 

Question: Some State offices that certify DBEs have incentives to approve DRE 

applications when eligibility criteria are not met, in order to meet State DBE goals. 

There is an inherent conflict of interest. Are the accountability measures established 

by DOT/OAs sufficient to prevent fraud by certifying agencies, especially when 

there is only one certifying agency in the State? Are these accountability measures 

working? 
41

Congresswoman Herrera Beutler Questions for the Record 

Asked of the Honorable Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General, DOT 

House THUD Subcommittee Oversight Hearing on Management Issues at DOT and HUD 

March 14, 2013 

Answer: 

Our audit and investigations did not identity, and we arc not aware of, any States that 

offered incentives to approve ORE applications. There is a national aspirational goal of 

expending 10 percent of authorized funds for OREs. Each state recipient sets a 

participation goal, independent of the 10 pcrcent national goal, expressed as the 

percentage of authorized DOT funds it will expect to spend on DBEs for contracts that 

are awarded or committed in a fiscal year. These goals are based on the overall dollars 

awarded to DBEs rather than the number of different DBE firms who get certified or 

ultimately get work. Accordingly, the only goal that exists is based on how many net 

Federal dollars get awarded to DBEs, rather than how many DBEs get ccrtitied to 

participate in the program or how many DBEs are actually successful in getting work. 

Question: Does DOT conduct adequate oversight of state certifying organizations? 

Answer: 

Our audit found DOT's oversight of State certitying organizations was insufficient. The 

individual OAs perform oversight of the DBE program but the Department does not 

monitor thc consistency or quality of the oversight being performed. Only FT A performs 

reviews of the Unified Certification Program (UCP). However, over the last year, FTA 

has been sharing its rcviews with FHW A and FAA since UCP certification offices certity 

DBEs to perform work for all OAs. A contractor performs FTA's UCP reviews; however, 

only a limited number of reviews are completed each year. For example, FTA performed 

only six UCP reviews in FY 2011, and only 3 ofthosc 6 had been finalized at the time of 

our audit. More details on the number and various methods of oversight review 

perform cd by the OAs can be found in Table 2 of our rcccnt audit report. 

Question: I am concerned there are no significant repercussions for companies that 

misrepresent their business's qualifications in order to win government contracts. 

What management and oversight weaknesses has DOT OIG identified with respect 

to DOT's DBE program and do you have any recommendations to improve upon 

these areas? 

Answer: 

Our audit identified significant DOT program management and oversight weakncsscs. 

All 8 of our audit report recommendations are aimed at strengthening thcse identified 

weaknesses. However. we did not focus our audit field work on the sanctions being 

implemented for DBEs that misrepresent thcir qualifications. 
42

Congresswoman Herrera Beutler Questions for the Record 

Asked of the Honorable Calvin L Scovel III, Inspector General, DOT 

House THUD Subcommittee Oversight Hearing on Management Issues at DOT and HUD 

March 14, 2013 

During our review, we found that recipients and the OAs arc very hesitant to invoke 

sanctions for non-compliance, including non-compliance with the certification process. 

OAs lack awareness of the instances of recipient non-compliance that arc taking place 

partially due to the OAs' limited oversight and lack of direct communication with the 

recipients, especially regarding the certification process. Additionally, recipients 

infrequently impose sanctions against DBE and non-DBE contractors. For example, over 

the past 10 years from up to the time we performed our audit, FTA and FAA never 

withheld funds from recipients due to non-compliance, and FHW A had only three 

instances. FHW A Headquarters does not track the sanctions the Division Offices take 

regarding withholding funds, and had to conduct a data call to respond to this question. 

As a result of the hesitancy to impose formal sanctions for non-compliance, DBE and 

non-DBE firms often face no repercussions when acting in noncompliance with the DBE 

regulation. OIG investigations cite this reluctance to take remedial action as a critical 

DBE program weakness and cause for DBE fraud. 

Question: What steps does OIG recommend that DOT and the OAs take to ensure 

federal dollars do not flow to companies who have been kicked out of the DBE 

program for misrepresenting their qualifications? 

Answer: 

Firms that arc indicted or convicted of DBE or other fraud should be suspended or 

debarred from further Federal work. OAs and recipients should check the government 

wide "Excluded Parties" lists to hclp prevent inadvertent awards to firms associated with 

wrongdoing. Nevertheless, wc found that firms can slip through the cracks by 

misrepresenting the truth on a DBE certification application, since questions about 

whether they were ever denied certification require no follow-up. Qualification reviews 

are part of the certification process. Delayed, untimcly, or inadequately completed 

certification reviews can lead to DBE awards going to unqualified firms or firms that are 

not entitled to participate in the program. We have requested the department improve 

training and oversight to reduce the number of awards that go to firms that arc not 

entitled to participate in the program or the type of work being contracted. 
43

Question for the Record 

Submitted by Congresswoman Granger 

DIRECTED TO HUD OIG 

IN YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU BRIEFLY HIGHLIGHT THE HOME PROGRAM, WHICH IS DESIGNED TO 

CREATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. HOWEVER, 

YOU SIGHT CONCERNS ABOUT PROGRAM OVERSIGHT WEAKNESSES AND FRAUD ISSUES AS 

THEY RELATE TO THE DISBURSEMENT OF GRANTS. 

CAN YOU PROVIDE THIS COMMITTEE WITH ANY EXAMPLES OF FRAUD AND OVERSIGHT 

WEAKNESSES? WHAT STEPS CAN HUD IS TAKE TO ADDRESS THESE PROBLEMS? 

HOME Program 

Fraud Examples (Investigation) 

Our investigative work reflects that fraud perpetrated on the HOME program, similar to other 

grant fraud, is sometimes facilitated through opportunity, desperation, and greed. Defendants 

may be motivated by ease of access to the funds and by their ability to deceive program 

oversight by manipulating the grant procedures. Subjects of our investigations have included 

executive directors of community development departments and nonprofit entities, elected 

officials, construction company employees, contractors, developers, and investment 

companies. Our HOME program cases generally involve fraud schemes associated with 

embezzlement of funds, bribery, theft, false billing, and kickbacks. Often, our cases are referred 

to us from confidential informants, who are involved with the grant and contract processes 

and, on occasion, by the Department, our Office of Audit, the press, and the grantees 

themselves. The impact on local jurisdictions that are victims of HOME fraud can be significant 

in terms of the negative publicity it sometimes generates and the loss of rehabilitation funds to 

the local community. This impact is evident in the following case examples: 

• The owner of a construction company in New Jersey and a contractor for a local 

neighborhood preservation program receiving HUD Community Development Block 

Grant (CDBG) and HOME program funds, was sentenced in U.S. District Court, Newark, 

NJ, to 39 months incarceration and 3 years of probation and ordered to pay HUD 

$82,70S in restitution for his earlier guilty pleas to committing mail fraud, obtaining 

property through fraud, and offering and giving a corrupt thing of value. Over an 8-year 
44

period, he paid bribes to a conspirator in exchange for more than $652,448 in 

neighborhood preservation program contracts. 

• A former commissioner for a Florida county government entity that receives HUD CDBG, 

HOME, and other HUD funding, remitted $3,400 to the U.s. Department of Justice and 

was sentenced in U.S. District Court, Jacksonville, FL, to 21 months incarceration, 16 

months home detention, and 36 months of probation for his earlier guilty plea to 

corruptly soliciting and accepting a bribe intended to influence a government business 

transaction. Over a i-year period, he accepted $60,000 in bribes from contractors in 

return for his influence or rewards involving county contracts. 

• A former program manager for a Pennsylvania community development corporation, an 

organization that receives HUD HOME funds, was sentenced in U.S. District Court, 

Johnstown, PA, to 10 months home detention and 60 months of probation and ordered 

to pay the development corporation $46,960 in restitution for her earlier guilty plea to 

committing embezzlement. She failed to report income or her actual household 

composition on two corporation loan applications and fraudulently obtained two loans 

and a grant. She later removed the HOME liens from the property deed without 

authorization. 

• A grant administrator for a Mississippi planning and development district, an 

organization that receives HUD HOME funds, was sentenced in U.s. District Court, 

Oxford, MS, to 18 months home detention and 3 years of probation for her earlier guilty 

plea to conspiracy. Over a i-year period, she and others created fictitious invoices and 

building inspections for nonexistent homes, deposited district payments into bank 

accounts controlled by others, and used about $80,751 in district funds for their 

personal benefit. 

Fraud-Oversight Weakness Examples (Audit and Investigation) 

Some of those who have been caught perpetrating HOME fraud have confessed that they 

detected minimal program monitoring and oversight and have indicated that due to this, they 

were able to exploit the program for their personal enrichment. Indeed, some defendants have 

stated that when monitoring was conducted, the defendants were able to hand pick which 

projects would be inspected. This ability allowed the defendants to steer oversight entities 

toward projects that were completed in accordance with policies rather than risking exposure 

of their wrongdoing in certain other HOME projects. In other cases, defendants have stated 

that they were able to use HUD's Integrated Disbursement and Information System (1015) to 

indicate that projects were completed to take the final drawdown funds for projects that were 

not completed. Defendants indicated that they were able to easily do this because monitoring 

of transactions was limited. 
45

In some cases, real estate developers submitted invoices purportedly from subcontractors 

along with draw requests. The HOME grantees did not verify the accuracy of the invoices with 

a subcontractor and processed the falsified invoices. Increased attention by HOME grantees to 

verification of draw requests and related HUD oversight would have a deterrent effect. 

One aspect of monitoring that HUD may want to consider is the use of independent third-party 

monitors in the HOME program. HUD used this concept in monitoring reconstruction grants (in 

this case community development grants) in New York after the destruction of September 11, 

2001. Additionally, this concept was used in the Gulf States with five housing authorities for 

monitoring disaster recovery grants in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The use of the thirdparty monitors could be incorporated into the administrative fees to manage the HOME 

program or as part of the underwriting process for project implementation. Separation of 

duties by HOME participants in their operations would be a sound fraud prevention strategy. 

The same individual should not deSign, implement, manage, and draw down funds for HOMEfunded projects. 

Our audit of Prince George's County, Largo, MD, found that the County generally did not 

administer Its HOME program in accordance with Federal requirements (audit report number 

2012-PH-1011, dated August 3,2012). The County did not ensure that three of its four active 

housing development organizations were eligible and operating in compliance with program 

requirements. It also improperly committed program funds and could not show that it followed 

requirements related to program funds it provided for rental, down payment, and rehabilitation 

requirements. Also, the County failed to perform monitoring according to program 

requirements. As a result, it made approximately $2.4 million in ineligible disbursements and 

could not support $1.3 million in disbursements. It also had about $4.7 million in excess, 

improperly committed, or underused program funds. 

Jack Johnson served as the Prince George's county executive from 2002 through 2010. In 

February 2011, he was indicted for soliciting and accepting things of value in exchange for 

providing and agreeing to provide favorable official action for and on behalf of developers and 

other favored contractors. He pled guilty in May 2011, and in December 2011, he was 

sentenced to about 7 years in Federal prison. James Johnson, the former director of the 

County's Department of Housing and Community Development, was also involved in the 

conspiracy and pled guilty in January 2011. James Johnson served as the housing director from 

November 2009 until December 2010. He had served as the acting housing director from 

October 2008 until November 2009. James Johnson was sentenced to 37 months in prison. 
46

We recommended that HUD require the County to: 

• Identify, at least annually, its universe of program subrecipients, development 

organizations, and applicable projects to review and perform monitoring according to 

program requirements. 

• Implement a process to track, evaluate, and address the training needs of management 

and staff responsible for administering the program. 

• Use its remaining administrative funds to strengthen its administration of the program. 

• Implement the technical assistance agreement with the County to ensure that it 

receives the assistance it needs to run its program in accordance with requirements. 

Below are additional audit reports showing examples of monitoring and oversight 

weaknesses identified and our corresponding recommendations for corrective action. 

HUD's Proposed HOME Regulations Generally Addressed Systemic Deficiencies, but 

Field Office Monitoring and Data Validation Need Improvement (audit report number 

2013-BO-0001, dated February 12, 2013) 

HUD Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) program officials' oversight 

of field office monitoring of grantee compliance was not sufficient to ensure that 

monitoring was effective and complete. HUD headquarters officials did not determine 

whether field office monitoring efforts were effective, identified systemic deficiencies, 

or oversaw the monitoring of non-high-risk grantees. This condition occurred because 

the quality management review process they relied on failed to identify systemic 

monitoring flaws and program officials did not use the information derived during onsite 

performance reviews to assess monitoring efforts. As a result, program officials could 

not ensure that they identified systemic issues requiring corrective action, such as 

seldom- or never-monitored grantees and longstanding noncompliant grantees. In 

addition, program officials did not assess the monitoring of grantees that field offices 

determined were not high risk to ensure the soundness of risk assessments and obtain 

early warnings of potential deficiencies. 

We recommended that HUD develop and implement comprehensive procedures to 

assess the effectiveness and completeness of monitoring efforts using metric or query 

data, and evaluate the field office testing of non-high-risk grantees to ensure the 

soundness of risk assessments and obtain early warning of potential deficiencies as 

provided for in HUD Notice CPD-12-02. 
47

The Municipality of Ponce, PR, Did Not Always Ensure Compliance with HOME 

Investment Partnerships Program Requirements (audit report number 2013-AT-1001, 

issued November 30, 2012) 

The HOME-funded activity did not meet program objectives in that the Municipality 

disbursed more than $327,000 for an activity that showed signs of slow progress 

without assurance that the activity would generate the intended benefits. This 

condition occurred because the Municipality did not take appropriate monitoring 

measures to ensure that its activities met HOME objectives. As a result, HUD had no 

assurance that funds were used solely for eligible purposes and that HOME-funded 

activities met program objectives and fully provided the intended benefits. 

We recommended that HUD require the Municipality to: 

• Reevaluate the feasibility of the activity. 

• Develop detailed monitoring procedures and controls for its HOME program to 

ensure that HUD requirements and objectives are met. 

The Municipality did not have adequate controls regarding information entered into 

HUD's information system. The Municipality reported to HUD more than $2.5 million in 

HOME commitments without executing a written agreement or identifying the property 

in accordance with HUD requirements and with inaccurate commitment dates. It also 

failed to report more than $11,000 in program income and recaptured funds. These 

deficiencies occurred because the Municipality did not properly monitor the accuracy of 

commitments and other information reported in HUD's information system. As a result, 

HUD had no assurance that the MuniCipality met HOME program objectives, 

commitments, and disbursement requirements. 

We recommended that HUD require the Municipality to reconcile its program income 

and recapture funds with the information entered into HUD's IDIS to ensure that all 

receipts were properly recorded. 

The City of Compton Did Not Administer Its HOME Program in Compliance With HOME 

Requirements (audit report number 20ll-LA-1016, issued August 18, 2011) 

The City's subrecipient did not enter required completion data into IDIS in a timely 

manner for 15 of its program activities. In addition, one of the activities needed to be 

canceled, and the balances for two of its activities needed to be reallocated to current 

activities. The subrecipient also could not provide adequate source documentation to 

support 10 open activities, totaling more than $2.2 million in funds that were committed 
48

in lOIS between 1993 and 200S. This deficiency was due to the subrecipient's lack of 

understanding of HOME requirements and lack of an adequate quality control system to 

ensure that required project completion data were complete, accurate, entered into 

lOIS in a timely manner, and supported. In addition, the subrecipient had not been 

routinely monitored by the City. Failure to enter project completion data may 

negatively impact future funding for the program. In addition, there was insufficient 

information available to determine whether more than $2.2 million in program funds 

was expended for eligible HOME activities. 

We recommended that HUO require the City to: 

• Establish and implement effective policies and procedures to ensure that an 

adequate quality control system is maintained and required project completion 

information and beneficiary data are complete, accurate, entered into lOIS in a 

timely manner, and supported. 

• Regularly monitor the subrecipient to ensure that project data are complete, 

accurate, timely, and supported. 

• Conduct training for subrecipient personnel on HOME program requirements 

pertaining to entry of activity completion data and maintenance of supporting 

documentation for HOME projects and activities. 

The Municipality of Mayaguez, PR, Did Not Ensure Compliance With HOME Program 

Objectives (audit report number 2011-AT-I006, dated April 8, 2011) 

The Municipality disbursed more than $4.4 million for two activities that did not meet 

HOME program objectives and more than $2.8 million for an additional activity for which 

it could not support its compliance with HOME program objectives. We attribute the 

noncompliance to the inadequate monitoring of HOME-funded activities and the 

Municipality's unfamiliarity with HUO requirements. As a result, HUO had no assurance 

that funds were used solely for eligible purposes and that HOME program objectives were 

met. 

We recommended that HUO require the Municipality to establish and implement 

appropriate monitoring procedures to ensure that HOME requirements and objectives 

are met. 
49

Question for the Record 

Submitted by Congresswoman Granger 

DIRECTED TO HUD OIG I GAO 

Mr. Montoya (HUD IG) and/or Mr. Herr (GAO): 

Background: 

Among the responsibilities of the Office of Public and Indian Housing is to ensure safe, decent, 

and affordable housing for all program participants. It is my understanding that life safety 

devices such as smoke alarms are required in all HUD housing be they hard wired or battery 

operated. According to the National Fire Protection Association, in home fires between 2005-

09, 50% of smoke alarms failed to sound because the batteries were missing or disconnected 

and another 23% of alarms failed due to dead batteries. 

Advancements have led to smoke alarms that today prevent consumer tampering and can 

power the alarm for a minimum of 10 years. By sealing the batteries into the unit's housing and 

Circuitry, these alarms are tamper resistant. Further, the battery cells utilized provide a 

minimum of 10 years of operation, which is consistent with the recommended service life of 

smoke alarms as well as NFPA 72 - the national smoke alarm guidance standard. 

The average lO-year, tamper resistant smoke alarm costs between $18-20 - roughly $5 more 

than a traditional battery operated smoke alarm. Since the alarm's battery does not need to be 

replaced twice a year - around daylight savings time for example - homeowners save between 

$40-60 in battery replacement cost over the life of the alarm. In fact, as these alarms have 

become affordable, state lawmakers across the US have begun requiring the replacement of 

battery-operated smoke alarms with these more maintenance-free alarms. To date, California, 

Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon as well as Milwaukee and Philadelphia have passed 

laws requiring 10-year tamper-resistant battery smoke alarms, and since the beginning of 2013, 

seven additional state legislatures now have bills pending. 

Also, I believe that HUD's safety standards for manufactured home were recently updated and 

now require the use of ten year life, tamper resistant smoke alarms. 

QUESTION: 

Has there been any discussion within HUD of expanding the requirement of the use of 10 year, 

tamper resistant alarms, in all pUblic housing where hard wiring these devices isn't an option 

because of cost or the aging infrastructure? 

o HUD has stated that it has had no such discussions and is not considering making this 

change mandatory for all pUblic housing units at this time. DIG acknowledges that some 

States and localities have made the use of the tamper-resistant smoke alarms mandatory. 

According to HUD requirements, State and local requirements that exceed Federal 

requirements are mandatory for public housing units in those locations as well. Therefore, 

as States and localities mandate this change, all HUD-assisted housing, including public 

housing, multifamily insured or subsidized housing, and rental units in the Housing Choice 

Voucher program, will benefit as well. 
50

Submitted by Ranking Member Pastor 

Recoveries and Civil Money Penalties 

• In each of the past five years, how much money have you recovered in civil money 

penalties, settlements or other recoveries? 

• How many cases were involved? 

o The following schedule provides the number of cases and "recoveries" attributable to 

HUD OIG criminal, civil and administrative cases. For criminal cases, the amounts 

represent court ordered restitution and other recoveries such as asset seizures that are 

controlled by the Department of Justice (DOJ). HUD OIG does not actually recover these 

amounts because the ultimate collection is the responsibility of DOJ. Therefore, HUD 

OIG has no way of tracking amounts actually recovered. Also, the amounts below 

include the entire court ordered restitution amounts that are typically not broken out by 

agency. Moreover, they include amounts that are designated for victims. Our current 

case management system does not enable us to track the individual break downs of 

restitutions ordered in a case. 

Data prior to April 2010 are not readily available as this is when HUD OIG's Office of 

Investigation switched to a new case management system to track its cases. 

Accordingly, the available data for fiscal year 2010 provided in the chart below covers 

the second half of that fiscal year. 

FY 2010 (April to FY 2013 (through 

September) FY 2011 FY2012 March 2013) 

Recoveries Cases Recoveries Cases 

"~ri~:r.:' Recoveries Cases 

$110,609,845 274 $261,607,653 501 $4,523,343,363 406 $401,358,439 184 

• How many of the cases originated under the False Claims Act? 

o The following schedule provides the number of cases and recoveries included in the 

above schedule where civil recoveries were made pursuant to the False Claims Act. We 

do not track whether cases were actually opened under the False Claims Act. For 

example, investigative cases may start as criminal cases but are subsequently 

prosecuted by DOJ as civil false claims cases. Also, many cases originating as Program 

Fraud Civil Remedy Act cases are subsequently prosecuted civilly by DOJ under the False 

Claims Act. 
51

FY 2010 (April to FY 2013 (through 

September) FY 2011 FY 2012 March 2013) 

Recoveries Cases Recoveries Cases Recoveries Cases Recoveries Cases 

$1,950,675 4 $644,624 9 $813,319,937 32 $349,150,173 5 

• How many cases originated from your office? 

o We do not track the origin of our cases. However, we estimate that well over 95 percent 

of the following cases originated with HUD-OIG. 

2013 

(through 

2010 2011 2012 March) 

Cases opened 1,353 1,240 789 327 
52

Oversight of PHAs 

• How adequate are HUD's assessment tools (PHAS and SEMAP) at identifying weaknesses in 

PHA governance? 

o HUD's assessment tools are based on information provided by the public housing 

agencies (PHA). Therefore, the adequacy is based on the reliability and relevancy of the 

PHAs' submissions. Our audit reports on individual agencies' Section 8 programs have 

shown, on many occasions, instances in which PHAs have not provided correct 

information through the Section Eight Management Assessment Program (SEMAP). 

HUD is aware of data reliability issues and has some additional controls in place to help 

it monitor PHAs, such as confirmatory reviews that verify SEMAP information reported. 

We have issued a recent report relating to the adequacy of HUD's oversight of SEMAP 

(http://www.hudoig.gov/Audit Reports/2012-AT-0001.pdf). In this report, we 

demonstrate that SEMAP does not sufficiently meet its objective of identifying 

underperforming PHAs through this self-certification process. In response to our 

recommendations, HUD advised that it is implementing its "Next Generation 

Management System." However, until this system is implemented, its effectiveness 

remains to be seen. 

• Is there an effort to identify PHAs that are on a downward trajectory in PHAS or SEMAP, but 

aren't yet considered troubled? 

o HUD field offices perform risk assessments at the beginning of each year to prioritize 

their monitoring efforts. Identifying risks includes identifying program missions, goals, 

and objectives to determine which risks are to be assessed. These risks are then 

analyzed at each PHA. The PHAS and SEMAP scores are included in the analysis 

process. Monitoring objectives are determined based on this analYSis. The field office 

then develops risk-based methods to rate participants, programs, and functions, 

including assessing the Department's exposure to fraud, waste, and mismanagement. 

Finally, HUD establishes criteria for risk profiles. The risk profiles, which summarize the 

individual risk identified with a particular program participant (or program activity), help 

determine the level of resources required to fulfill monitoring responsibilities. Once 

troubled (see definitions below) or near-troubled agencies are identified, PIH field 

offices offer direct assistance, technical assistance grants, or assistance from the Office 

of Recovery and Prevention Corps. 
53

o SEMAP: A PHA with a SEMAP assessment score below 60 percent is designated as 

SEMAP troubled. The SEMAP status carries special action and reporting requirements 

and may not be removed without a confirmatory review by the field office. 

o PHAS: A PHA is designated under PHAS as a substandard performer if the PHA achieves 

a total PHAS score of at least 60 percent and achieves a score of less than 60 percent 

under one or more of the physical condition, financial condition, or management 

operations indicators. PH As with the substandard designation are most likely in a 

downward trajectory. The HUD office with jurisdiction over the PHA must require a 

corrective action plan if the deficiencies have not already been addressed in a current 

corrective action plan. A PHA is designated as a troubled performer if the PHA achieves 

an overall PHAS score of less than 60 percent. 

• Is there a standardized training program for PHA board members? 

o OIG is not aware of any HUD-sponsored standardized training program for PHA board 

members. However, professional organizations provide specialized training for board 

members. 

Risk Modeling 

• How would you assess HUD's progress in improving risk modeling? 

o HUD's Federal Housing Administration (FHA) has made improvements and continues to 

improve the accuracy of cash flow analysis from its modeling. HUD provides mortgage 

insurance to protect lenders against the risk of default on mortgages to qualified 

buyers. To estimate its liability for loan guarantee at the end of each fiscal year, FHA 

uses econometric models to project future cash flows of its loan portfolio. OIG 

contracted with an independent public accounting firm to review the reasonableness of 

the methodology and assumptions used in these models as part of the annual financial 

statement audit of FHA. As a by-product of this audit, a number of recommendations 

for improvement were identified and are discussed with FHA each year. For example, 

recently, OIG asked FHA to consider short-term versus long-term modeling to effectively 

respond to changes in the current mortgage economic environment, and FHA has been 

receptive to OIG's recommendation. Additionally, in response to OIG's feedback, FHA 

has made a number of significant improvements to its models in the last 2 years as a 

continuing effort to mitigate modeling risk and improve the accuracy of its cash flow 

analysis as noted below. 
54

Fiscal Year 2012 

Y Implemented a stochastic interest rate and house price growth simulation rather 

than a single deterministic path to project the net present value cash flows. The 

stochastic methodology used 100 equally probable paths of house prices and 

interest rates and then averaged them to determine the final results. 

Y Introduced a claim type prediction model to separate real estate-owned (REO) 

claims and preforeclosure sale (PFS) claims. In prior years, historical average 

claim rates between REDs and PFSs were used. However, in recent years, the 

overall delay in claims has decreased REO claim counts more than PFS claim 

counts. Since REO claims have a much higher loss rate than PFS claims, the 

result could lead to a downward bias in overall loss rates. To avoid this potential 

bias, REO and PFS claims were estimated separately using a more sophisticated 

approach that will not be biased by claims processing delays. 

Y Improved the recovery assumption to better reflect program performance in 

stressful environments. 

Y Refined the cash flow model to provide cash flows at the individual product level 

(3D-year fixed, lS-year fixed, 3D-year adjustable-rate mortgage, etc.) rather than 

just aggregate cash flows. 

Fiscal Year 2011 

Y Introduced a transition rate model to effectively break down claim rates into 

seven different default transitions from (1) current to default, (2) current to 

prepay, (3) default to prepay, (4) default to claim, and (5) three types of default 

to current (cure). 

" Converted the cash flow models from Excel to SAS (Statistical Analysis Software), 

which eliminated the step of having to extract data from the Single Family Data 

Warehouse. The cash flow model was also changed to develop cash flow 

forecasts quarterly rather than annually, which enhanced the model output's 

granularity. 
55

• Are there any outstanding recommendations that HUD has not yet implemented? 

o No, there are no outstanding recommendations relating to rick modeling. HUD has 

been receptive to OIG's recommendations and has implemented recommendations 

when and where appropriate. 

Administrative Contracting Issues 

• Other than debarments, does HUD, the IG or GAO track contractors who fail to perform 

their contractual obligations? 

o The Contractor Performance Assessment and Integrity System is used to document 

contractor performance assessments and evaluations. HUD had fallen behind in 

entering information into these systems. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

is monitoring HUD's input into these systems and has given HUD a 75 percent 

goal. HUD's self-imposed goal is 85 percent. The Past Performance Information 

Retrieval System and the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information 

System are other government-wide systems that provide information on contractor 

performance. These systems provide users with debarments and integrity and past 

performance information on contractors. 

• Does HUD provide any technical assistance to grantees when selecting vendors? Is there a 

list of troubled contractors that is shared with grantees? 

o Grantee selection of vendors is guided by State and local rules. HUD may offer 

assistance to an agency that specifically requests its assistance. The different HUD 

offices (Office of Community Planning and Development, PI H) may also provide 

procurement training to grantees that request it. There is no list of troubled contractors 

that is shared with grantees. 

• Do agencies share data on poorly performing or debarred contractors with other agencies? 

o HUD does not share the information with other agencies, but information on poorly 

performing contractors should be recorded in OMB's MAX system and made available to 

other agencies. 
56

• Does poor performance in with one agency impact a contractor's ability to secure a contract 

with another agency? 

o The Federal Acquisition Regulation requires assessing past performance when rating a 

contractor, and the contractor has the opportunity to address deficiencies cited by the 

contracting officer. The rating is provided to OMB and recorded in OMB's MAX 

system. The information in OMB's MAX system is available to all federal agencies. 

Streamlining HUD Programs 

• With respect to streamlining programs, what areas at HUD would yield the most 

improvements? Do these program improvements require statutory authority or can they 

be achieved through regulations? 

o OIG has a legislative proposal initiative in which we are working closely with 

legislators in areas in which we believe programs can be improved through 

legislative changes. We will submit these suggestions to the appropriate 

committees after we fully develop and vet the ideas. 

o In addition, HUD has an ongoing Transformation Initiative which Congress has 

funded for the past several years. One part of this initiative takes up to 0.5 percent 

of HUD's total fiscal year 2012 budget to build a transparent and accountable agency 

that uses: 

Metrics to gauge performance. 

Research to evaluate programs. 

Demonstrations to illustrate the broader impact of Federal interventions. 

Technical assistance to identify and diffuse innovation. 

Technology to track spending; inform decisions; and curb fraud, waste, and 

abuse. 

o The initiative has four related components: (1) research and evaluation, which 

allows current programs to be subjected to continuous and rigorous evaluations for 

constant improvement; (2) program demonstrations, which test new ideas for 

improving programs and help State and local governments develop more effective 

strategies for housing and community and economic development; (3) technical 

ossistance and capacity building, which merge all funding to target programs to 

improve skills needed to improve program outcomes rather than focusing on 

compliance; and (4) develop next generation information technology systems, which 

is a major need for HUD based on years of financial audit findings. This initiative 
57

should give HUD ideas on where it can streamline its programs. The program is in 

place, but each proposed effort to streamline it would have to be individually 

evaluated to determine whether statutory changes are needed. 

Financial Management Systems 

• How will the shared service agreement with the Bureau of Public Debt impact your 

assessment of HUD financial services capabilities? 

o At this time, a shared service agreement with the Bureau of Public Debt (BPD) has not 

been finalized. Therefore, we are unable to fully assess the impact this will have on our 

work. If HUD moves forward with this plan, our assessment of HUD's financial services 

capabilities would not be impacted until the transition to the new application. Upon 

transition to the new application(s), one of our first steps would be to assess the service 

auditor's report, referred to as the Statement on Standards for Attestation 

Engagements No. 16 report. As part of the review, the service auditor should perform 

tests of compliance on many of HUD's core systems' functional and information security 

requirements, using agreed-to standards and control objectives. We would review the 

control objectives used in the service auditor's report and make an assessment to 

determine whether they address HUD's risks and satisfy our needs. From there, we 

would determine whether to rely on that report. 

If we are able to rely on the service auditor's work, HUD OIG's information system work 

for the financial statement audit would be refocused on HUD's feeder systems. 

Generally, most of HUD's accounting transactions originate in the feeder systems. Over 

the years, many of the most critical application control issues identified by HUD OIG 

auditors were found at the feeder system level. 

If we determine that we are not able to rely on the service auditor's report, we would 

perform tests of the system, much as we do currently. 

• What are the limitations of this arrangement? 

o One primary limitation of the shared service agreement with BPD is that HUD is not the 

only client of the service provider. Therefore, there is a risk that not all of what HUD 

OIG considers to be significant control objectives will be tested at the level that we 

believe they should be and reSUlting program risks will not be identified and reported. 

In addition, although all of the details of the agreement have not been worked out, the 

agreement will primarily cover core financial functions. Most of HUD's accounting 

transactions originate in feeder applications that will be interfaced into the core 
58

financial application. The Department's reliance on these feeder applications will not be 

modified under the shared service agreement; therefore, assessments of controls 

related to these transactions will be necessary within the feeder applications. 
(59)

FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 2013. 

OVERSIGHT HEARING: SANDY DISASTER RELIEF AND 

RECOVERY

WITNESSES

JOHN PORCARI, DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

FRED TOMBAR, SENIOR ADVISOR FOR DISASTER PROGRAMS, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

MARION MCFADDEN, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER AND LEAD COUNSEL, HURRICANE SANDY REBUILDING TASK FORCE, DEPARTMENT 

OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. LATHAM. The subcommittee will come to order. I want to 

welcome everyone to a rare Friday hearing. Thank you, everyone, 

for being here. 

This is an oversight exercise on the work and the funds going 

into the recovery from the devastation of Hurricane Sandy. Our 

witnesses today are the Honorable John Porcari, Deputy Secretary 

to the Department of Transportation; Mr. Fred Tombar, Senior Advisor to the Secretary on Disaster Recovery at the Department of 

Housing and Urban and Development; and Ms. Marian McFadden, 

Chief Operating Officer of the Hurricane Sandy Recovery Task 

Force. Welcome, all of you. 

Hopefully today we will learn a bit more about how the Departments and the task force will take responsibility for these activities 

and these dollars. Overall the Congress provided $50.5 billion, with 

the Transportation/HUD subcommittee making up $29 billion of 

the funds. That is a staggering amount of money, and by sheer volume there is a lot of oversight to be done. 

In hindsight, looking at the funds and the results of what was 

provided after the Gulf Coast storms, I don’t know if the Federal 

Government has shown that it knows how to plan, oversee, or implement the strategy for how the CDBG dollars will be used effectively. There is no emergency CDBG program authorization to follow, or formula to use, to determine the best and appropriate response for the scale of such a response. 

I think we can all agree that the way we have gone about addressing disaster recovery in this country has been inconsistent. 

Speaking for many thousands of counties and families in the 43 

States with a declared disaster in 2011, I can tell you we didn’t see 

a Sandyesque response from the administration. There wasn’t a 

$50 billion request or response that year. The members of the— 

THUD Subcommittee managed to carve out a total of $400 million 

in CDBG for all those affected by the 2011 disasters, roughly 33 

cents on the dollar of damage. Ironically, New York was the big 

winner that year, receiving most of the money after Hurricane 

Irene.
60

Hurricane Sandy comes, and in no way am I downplaying the 

damage caused by the storm, but the CDBG request comes in at 

about $4 to $5 for every dollar of damage. It is kind of hard for 

me to explain that discrepancy back home to the communities that 

were under water, or completely blown off the map, receiving pennies or nothing at all to rebuild. 

So in addition to how we got to this number, I have some questions on how the Departments will allocate those funds, how they 

expect the grant recipients to use the funds, and what specific roles 

the task force will play in this recovery. 

We welcome our witnesses, and we look forward to your testimony and your answers to our questions. I will recognize a few 

people here for their statements, and then the witnesses, and we 

will move on. 

First of all, Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. PASTOR. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. Good morning. 

Mr. PASTOR. Thank you very much. 

I’d like to welcome all the panel members. I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

This is an important oversight hearing. Passing the supplemental appropriation bill in January was the right thing to do by 

providing relief to the communities that were destroyed by Hurricane Sandy. The ranking member of the full committee Mrs. 

Lowey, who will join us a little later, knows firsthand about the 

damage that occurred in New York. 

We must make sure that the Sandy funds first are distributed 

efficiently and effectively to repair the damage to the transportation and housing infrastructure, and, secondly, that critical improvements are made to help prevent damage to these facilities in 

future storms. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time, and I turn 

back my time to you so we can get back to the questions. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. I don’t know if there are any other Members 

here that wish to make any kind of a statement at this point. No, 

okay.

We will hear from our witnesses now. Please summarize your remarks, and your full written testimony will be included in the 

record.

So we will start with Mr. Porcari. Welcome. 

Mr. PORCARI. Thank you, Chairman Latham, Ranking Member 

Pastor, and members of the committee. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Department of Transportation’s accomplishments implementing the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 

2013. And let me first thank the subcommittee for its critical role 

in appropriating these funds. We know that we are stewards of 

these funds, and it is something that we take very seriously. 

When Sandy hit, the damages didn’t just take a tragic human 

toll, it also dealt a devastating blow to the regional transportation 

system. As soon as the storm was identified for potential landfall 

along the east coast, DOT staff began working with FEMA to monitor the storm’s progress and prepare to assist where needed. We 

activated our emergency response team and embedded response 

team members in local emergency operations centers. 
61

Fifty-eight DOT employees were deployed to the joint field offices 

in New York and New Jersey to help restore transportation and infrastructure immediately afterwards and to provide FEMA with additional assistance in the immediate aftermath. As a result, the 

Federal Highway Administration was able to provide $59 million in 

quick-release emergency relief funds just days after the storm hit 

to New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, and help start repairs on damaged roads and bridges. 

Despite substantial damage to its air navigation services equipment, the Federal Aviation Administration restored normal air 

traffic operations quickly by working around the clock to repair and 

replace equipment. Our Maritime Administration provided ships 

that fed and housed 968 emergency responders and ensured that 

11 vessels were able to carry more than 2.7 million barrels of petroleum products into the affected area. Our Federal Transit Administration worked with the General Services Administration to procure 250 buses that replaced lost commuter rail and transit service 

in New Jersey. 

All of these immediate response efforts helped restore affected 

transportation systems as quickly as possible. And, again, thanks 

to this committee, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 

provided $13.1 billion to the Department of Transportation and has 

allowed us to continue efforts to support our State and local partners with long-term transportation recovery and restoration efforts. 

This will go a long way toward rebuilding from Hurricane Sandy. However, let me be clear. Sequestration will cut over $650 million 

from funds recently provided through the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013. The brunt of these cuts will be felt in our 

work to strengthen our critical transit and rail infrastructure in 

the face of future natural disasters. 

DOT has make significant progress in implementing the Disaster 

Relief Act. On February 6th, the FTA published a notice in the 

Federal Register about the availability of the first $2 billion in 

funding for repair work, and we have already received several 

grant requests. FTA has allocated more than $390 million to date 

as the first installment of Hurricane Sandy relief funding, and next 

week we anticipate announcing more than $150 million in additional grants to States that include New Jersey and New York. 

These reimbursements were carefully vetted and will begin to alleviate the financial burden on the hardest-hit transit agencies. 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has been using its 

well-established emergency relief program to provide Hurricane 

Sandy funding to address highway repairs. FHWA allocated $489 

million in funding to the States affected by Hurricane Sandy. Amtrak has spent $17 million on recovery work to date, which includes repairing tunnels and signals, draining flooded areas, and 

removing debris. The Federal Aviation Administration continues to 

address Hurricane Sandy damage at LaGuardia, JFK, Newark Liberty, and Teterboro Airports. Most of this damage was at FAA facilities, and includes repairs to roofs, walls, navigation systems, 

power and equipment. 

We are ensuring that funds provided in the Disaster Relief Act 

and are managed properly and with the same strong internal controls used to administer other reimbursable funds at DOT. 
62

As we continue our Hurricane Sandy response efforts, we recognize our success is due in large part to our effective relationships 

with State, regional, local—and local partners. They have been critical to our understanding of local needs and continue to be important as we continue our recovery and repair work. 

With that, let me thank you again for inviting me here today, 

and I will be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

[The information follows:] 
63

STATEMENT OF 

THE HONORABLE JOHN D. PORCARI 

DEPUTY SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, 

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 

MARCH 15,2013 

Chainnan Latham, Ranking Member Pastor and Members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to discuss the Department of Transportation's (DOT) 

accomplishments in implementing the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of2013. 

Background 

Hurricane Sandy began as a tropical stonn on October 22, 2012 and quickly 

strengthened into a Category 3 hurricane by the time it made landfall in Cuba. 

From there, the stonn followed the east coast as it travelled North before finally 

dissipating on October 31, 2012. Hurricane Sandy became the largest Atlantic 

hurricane on record with winds spanning 1,100 miles and damage costs second 

only to Hurricane Katrina. 

Hurricane Sandy caused widespread devastation to the transportation infrastructure 

in its path. New York and New Jersey were especially hard hit sustaining 

significant damage to transit and commuter rail, Amtrak and freight railroads, 

airports and aviation systems, pipeline and natural gas distribution systems, and 

highways and tunnels. The entire area experienced major travelling delays as 

airport, transit, passenger rail and bus systems could not meet their schedules or 

provide typical services. The problem was further compounded by gas shortages 

throughout the affected areas. 

1 
64

The Department of Transportation's Initial Response 

As soon as the storm was identified as a potential threat, DOT's National Response 

Program staff began working with the Federal Emergency Management Agency's 

(FEMA) National and Regional Response Coordination Centers and Joint Field 

Offices to monitor the storm's progress and prepare to assist where needed. Fiftyeight DOT employees were deployed to Joint Field Offices in New York and New 

Jersey to assist state and local governments and other infrastructure owners to 

restore transportation and infrastructure and to provide FEMA with additional 

assistance in the immediate aftermath of the storm. 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provided $59 million in "Quick 

Release" Emergency Reliefto New York ($30 million), New Jersey ($20 million), 

North Carolina ($4 million), Rhode Island ($3 million), and Connecticut ($2 

million) to address critical highway repairs. 

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMC SA) issued an Eastern 

Regional Emergency Declaration, temporarily lifting the hours-of-service 

requirements and other regulations on interstate trucking carriers to speed the 

movement of emergency supplies into the affected area. An Interstate Petroleum 

Transport Team was established to resolve issues that might impede speedy 

delivery of fuel and relief supplies where needed. 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) opened an emergency docket 

providing waivers to its hours of service and equipment inspection requirements to 

facilitate response and recovery efforts. 

Despite substantial damage to its Air Navigation Services equipment, the Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) was able to restore normal air traffic operations 

quickly by working around the clock to repair and replace equipment. 

The Maritime Administration (MARAD) assisted with immediate recovery efforts 

by providing ships used to feed and house 968 emergency responders. MARAD 

also provided waivers to the Jones Act enabling 11 vessels to carry more than 2.7 

million barrels of petroleum products into the affected area. 

2 
65

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) assisted in 

coordinating emergency repairs of distribution lines and tracked the availability of 

fuel. 

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) sent staff to the region to assist with 

damage assessments and to coordinate with the transit authorities. FTA staff 

worked with the General Services Administration (GSA) to procure 250 buses to 

replace lost commuter rail and transit service in New Jersey and to connect to ferry 

terminals providing access to Manhattan. 

All of these immediate response efforts were critical in restoring services to the 

transportation systems as quickly as possible. However, it was clear that longer 

term repairs and restoration efforts would be necessary to return the transportation 

systems to pre-storm service levels. 

Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of2013 

The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of2013 ("Disaster Relief Act") provided 

$13.1 billion in supplemental appropriations to assist the Department of 

Transportation with long-term recovery and restoration efforts for those 

transportation systems damaged by Hurricane Sandy. These funds are to being 

used to support state and local partners in the rebuilding and recovery efforts; to 

ensure proper and cost-effective coordination between Federal, local and state 

partners; and to ensure a proper level of oversight in the administration of the 

funds. 

The Act provided $10.9 billion to the Federal Transit Administration to fund a new 

Emergency Relief program. Up to $5.4 billion of this funding may be directed to 

mitigation efforts, as determined by the Secretary, that will help strengthen 

transportation assets in a manner which would minimize damage from future 

storms. The Act also directs that $6 million of these funds be made available to the 

Office of the Inspector General for activities that will ensure proper oversight and 

accountability of these resources. 

3 
66

The Federal Highway Administration received $2 billion to fund highway 

emergency relief activities. Of this amount, $489 million was distributed for 

Hurricane Sandy Relief, and $315 million was provided to fully fund the current 

year backlog on prior events, with the remaining $1.218 billion to be used on 

future emergency relief needs. 

Amtrak received $118 million to undertake recovery and resiliency projects on the 

Northeast Corridor and to pay for repair work resulting from Hurricane damages. 

The Federal Aviation Administration received $30 million to fund repairs to airport 

facilities, aviation navigation systems, power systems and equipment. 

All of the funds provided to DOT have been apportioned and are ready to be 

allocated to projects, have already been allocated, or are at the obligation stage. 

Sequestration Impact 

Based on the Budget Control Act, the funds provided by the Disaster Relief 

Appropriations Act of 2013 will be reduced once sequestration takes effect. This 

means the resources provided to the Department of Transportation for Hurricane 

Sandy relief and restoration activities will be reduced by approximately five 

percent - or about $650 million. 

Implementation Status Report 

DOT has made significant progress in implementing the Disaster Relief Act. This 

is particularly evident in the ongoing work ofFTA as the Operating Administration 

continues to stand-up its new Emergency Reliefprogram. FTA published in the 

Federal Register a Notice of Availability of Emergency Relief Funds on February 

6 to notifY potential grantees of the availability of the first $2 billion for repair 

work. As a first step, FTA is targeting these funds towards local repair projects 

where expenses already have been incurred and disbursed, and to existing 

contractual commitments that are already underway. To date, FTA has received 

grant requests from the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MT A), the Port Authority 

of New York and New Jersey (PATH), and the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit 

4 
67

Authority (SEPTA). I am pleased to announce today that FTA has responded by 

allocating $390 million as the first installment of Hurricane Sandy relief funding. 

These reimbursements were carefully vetted and will begin to alleviate the 

financial burden on the hardest-hit transit agencies. Any funds remaining from this 

first $2 billion will be prorated to other known response and recovery costs as 

determined by the FTAIFEMA cost validation team. 

FT A has also been working collaboratively with FEMA on a Memorandum of 

Agreement (MOA) that identifies the responsibilities FTA will assume in future 

disasters involving transit systems. FEMA Administrator Fugate and Federal 

Transit Administrator Peter Rogoff signed the MOA this week. This is a major 

milestone achieved in standing up FTA's Public Transportation Emergency Relief 

Program. 

Along with its other efforts, FTA is working on a staffing plan to provide resources 

for a Hurricane Sandy Office in Region 2 that will strengthen FTA's ability to 

respond to issues as they arise. 

FHW A has been using its well-established Emergency Relief program to provide 

Hurricane Sandy funding to address needed highway repairs. FHW A allocated 

$489 million in funding to the states affected by Hurricane Sandy. In addition, $28 

million was allocated for Emergency Relief on Federally Owned facilities, 

including $6 million to help the National Park Service meet their time line for 

reopening Liberty Island and the Statue of Liberty. In the immediate aftermath of 

the storm, FHWA provided $59 million in "quick release" funds to enable states to 

begin critical repairs. So far, no additional requests from assistance have been 

received. 

FHW A has also allocated funds provided in the Disaster Relief Act to address the 

backlog of emergency relief projects. These funds which were also released on 

February 15th fully clear out FHW A's backlog for the current fiscal year. 

5 
68

FRA and Amtrak are working on grant proposals that will guide the 

implementation of Hurricane Sandy funds. Amtrak has expended $17 million for 

repair work including de-watering and repairing tunnels, repairing signals, draining 

flooded areas around Substation 41 (Kearney) and for other efforts such as tree 

removal, catenary repairs and debris slides. Amtrak continues to refine its list of 

Hurricane Sandy supplemental-eligible projects and cost estimates. 

The FAA continues to address Hurricane Sandy damages at three of the Nation's 

top 30 airports - LaGuardia, John F. Kennedy, and Newark Liberty International 

airports. Most of this damage was at FAA facilities and includes repairs to such 

things as roofs and walls, navigation systems, power systems and structures and 

equipment. FAA is currently managing 58 separate repair projects. 

As we continue to progress with Hurricane Sandy response and recovery efforts, it 

is important to note that we recognize that effective partnerships with our State and 

local partners, airport and transit authorities, and other regional entities in all the 

affected areas is an important element in implementing the provisions of the 

Disaster Relief Act and of ensuring an effective and efficient recovery and 

restoration process. These relationships have been critical in our understanding of 

the local needs and continue to be important as we address recovery and repair 

issues. 

Task Force Participation 

DOT is working closely with our other Federal partners to develop coordinated 

strategies for recovery and response efforts through participation in the Rebuilding 

Task Force. The work of this group will help inform future plans for rebuilding in 

a way that helps ensure that the Federal investments make sense. 

Mitigation Planning 

As work continues in this phase of Hurricane Sandy response and restoration, we 

recognize the need to restore the transportation infrastructure in a way that will 

result in guiding principles for rebuilding stronger, more resilient systems that can 

withstand future storms of this magnitude. The Department is developing a 

6 
69

process to assess potential mitigation projects that will focus on ways to strengthen 

the transportation infrastructure in the affected areas while recognizing the 

ihterdependencies and connection to other Federal, state, and local assets. The 

flooding situation at Substation 41 (Kearney) is an excellent example to consider. 

This substation that is critical in providing power to several transportation systems 

is below grade and has a history of flooding from typical storms. Correcting this 

fundamental problem now will help ensure uninterrupted transportation services in 

the future. 

Accountability 

As work continues in implementing the Disaster Relief Act, the Secretary is 

conducting regular briefings to assess our progress. The Inspector General has 

been invited to participate in these briefings. The Financial Management 

Stewardship Committee also meets weekly to ensure consistent management and 

reporting of funds across the Department. This group is also responsible for 

reporting on allocations, obligations, and expenditures of funds. 

DOT is taking steps to ensure that funds provided in the Disaster Relief Act are 

managed properly and with the same strong internal controls used to administer 

other reimbursable funds here at DOT. The reimbursable process ensures that 

Federal funds are not provided to grantees until projects are inspected and meet 

Federal standards. This is one more way we can ensure proper stewardship of the 

taxpayer's resources. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to share the Department's accomplishments 

in the Hurricane Sandy restoration efforts. I will be happy to answer your 

questions. 

7 
70

"",,>ratinlT officer with ''''''pUJI'"j'l'''' 

for of the 10 modal administrations 

and the work of more than DOT emDIO'Vet~S 

nationwide and overseas. Porcari is focused on 

role in economic oe'vel'Oprnellt and 

nr'''TJ,nm,a the foundation for America's future nrt'Qnpri'i'v 

included 

Marshall International 

toll 

Between 2003 and 2007, Porcari served as vice nrc'OUl!M'IT 

at the Park. He 

government level. 

,pt',.PT",,",, for Economic 

f)pnm-trnpnt of Business and Economic 

pO~>lW)ns in the state government, he served as vice 

ampPT'mn and land use firm and at the local 

Porcari received his B.A. from the 

Public Administration from the Rockefeller ,-,vu~,;S'"" 

at his wife and their five children live in 
71

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Tombar. 

Mr. TOMBAR. Chairman Latham, Ranking Member Pastor, and 

members of subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today regarding relief and recovery from Superstorm Sandy, particularly with respect to the actions of the Department of Housing 

and Urban and Development. As Senior Advisor for Disaster Recovery to HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, I have been deeply involved 

in those activities. And I am joined today by Marion McFadden, 

who is currently serving as the Chief Operating Officer of the Hurricane Sandy Task Force, established by President Obama and 

chaired by Secretary Donovan. We will both be pleased to answer 

any questions for you. 

Superstorm Sandy and a nor’easter that followed had an immense and varied impact. The storm directly affected more than 17 

million people, and Superstorm Sandy caused tens of billions of dollars in damage and is estimated to be the second most costly storm 

in American history. 

The Federal response to Sandy continues to involve unprecedented cooperation among Federal, State, local and tribal authorities. HUD, FEMA and other parts of the Department of Homeland 

Security, as well as Departments of Transportation and other Departments and agencies, are all working together in coordination 

with State, local, and tribal officials. 

HUD’s response to Sandy built on our experience from past 

major storms and disasters. I have addressed these efforts in my 

written testimony and would like to briefly summarize them now. 

HUD’S RESPONSE

Immediately after the storm, HUD provided help to storm-displaced families to find temporary replacement housing, gave direct 

assistance to persons living in and owners of HUD-assisted housing 

damaged or destroyed by the storm, worked to encourage the private sector to help displaced families, and deployed HUD personnel 

to help staff FEMA disaster recovery centers and do other stormrelated work. 

HUD made several regulatory changes to benefit those impacted 

by the storm, including providing foreclosure protection for storm 

victims with FHA-insured mortgages through a mandatory 90-day 

moratorium on foreclosures. On January 31st of this year, we extended that moratorium for an additional 90 days. We are also offering assistance to storm victims who must rebuild or replace 

their homes. 

HUD is providing help to affected State and local governments 

in the form of technical assistance to HUD grantees, waivers of existing rules so that existing Federal CDBG and HOME funds can 

be used for disaster relief, and work with State and local governments and tribes to develop interim housing plans and to provide 

loan guarantees for housing rehabilitation. These efforts are ongoing.

I would like to turn now to the longer-term Sandy recovery and 

rebuilding efforts, including the recent supplemental funding provided by this committee and the whole of Congress, and the work 

that the Hurricane Sandy Task Force—Rebuilding Task Force is 

doing.
72

As you are aware, on November 15th, President Obama announced that HUD Secretary Donovan will provide coordination in 

support of rebuilding efforts, and issued an Executive Order on December 7th providing that Secretary Donovan would serve as the 

chair of the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force. The Secretary’s responsibilities are in accord with the National Disaster 

Recovery Framework and involve cooperating closely with FEMA 

and the 20 other agencies already involved in recovery efforts. 

The focus of this task force is on coordinating Federal support as 

State, local, and tribal governments identify priorities, design individual rebuilding plans, and, over time, begin implementation. The 

Secretary is the Federal Government’s primary lead on engaging 

with States, tribes, local governments, the private sector, nonprofit 

community and philanthropic organizations, and many others on 

long-term Hurricane Sandy rebuilding. 

On January 29th, President Obama signed the Disaster Relief 

Appropriations Act of 2013. The supplemental funding bill funds 

FEMA projects; is support for Small Business Administration and 

its disaster loan program, and HUD Community Development 

Block Grant money. These funds will be provided to communities 

as well as for a range of other critical projects. 

Federal agencies and departments have already begun the process of making this money available to State and local and tribal 

governments in the region. HUD announced the first round of allocations of CDBGDR funding, totaling $5.4 billion. This represents 

fastest-ever allocation following the signing of an appropriations 

bill.

The role of this task force is not to dictate how funding is used; 

it is to find ways to leverage and maximize the impact of Federal 

dollars, and to help communities access this funding and use it in 

support of their development priorities. 

The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act also provides funding to 

help impacted communities effectively mitigate future risk of disaster and prevent losses of this magnitude. 

Both HUD and the task force look forward to continuing to work 

with this committee; subcommittee; others in Congress; and our 

Federal, State, and local and tribal partners to help make local rebuilding visions a reality and to support communities that are rebuilding in a way that makes them stronger, more economically 

competitive, and better prepared to withstand the next storm. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. Ms. McFadden and I will be happy to answer any questions you have. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you very much. 

[The information follows:] 
73

ll.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOllSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

WASHINGTON, OC 20410 

Written Testimony of Frederick Tombar 

Senior Advisor for Disaster Recovery to Secretary of U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

Hearing before the Snbcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban 

Development, and related Agencies of the House Committee on Appropriations, 

on 

Sandy Disaster Relief and Recovery 

Friday, March 15,2013 

Chairman Latham, Ranking Member Pastor, and Members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding relief and recovery from 

Superstorm Sandy, particularly with respect to the actions of the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (HUD). As Senior Advisor for disaster recovery to 

HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan, I have been deeply involved in those activities. I am 

joined today by Marion McFadden, who is currently serving as the Chief Operating 

Office of the Hurricane Sandy Task Force established by President Obama and 

chaired by Secretary Donovan. We would both be pleased to answer any questions 

you may have. 

In my testimony today, I will cover three subjects: 1) the damage caused by 

Superstorm Sandy; 2) HUD's participation in the ongoing response and recovery 

efforts; 3) the longer term rebuilding efforts with respect to Sandy, including the 

work of HUD with respect to the recent supplemental funding provided by 

Congress for those efforts. 

The Impact of and dama2e caused by Superstorm Sandy 

Superstorm Sandy and the Nor'easter that followed have had immense and varied 

impacts in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Maryland, and a 

number of other States. Within the United States, the storm caused 162 fatalities, 

major flooding, structural damage, and power loss to over 8.5 million homes and 

businesses, directly affecting more than 17 million people as far south as North 

Carolina, as far north as New Hampshire, and as far west as Indiana. Sandy caused 

tens of billions of dollars in damage and is estimated to be the second most costly 

storm in American history. 
74

Especially hard hit were New York and New Jersey, which employ 12.7 million 

workers. Combined, they export about $90 billion in goods annually, accounting 

for about 7 percent of such exports, and contributed $1.4 trillion to our gross 

domestic product (GDP) in 2011, accounting for more than 11 percent of GDP. 

The widespread damage from Superstorm Sandy impacted communities in a 

variety of ways. Hundreds of small businesses and tens of thousands of homes 

were damaged or destroyed. State, local and Tribal governments must address 

damage to roads, bridges, mass transit and other essential infrastructure, induding 

electrical and water treatment facilities, public hospitals, and shorelines. 

Unfortunately, one of the major effects of storms like Sandy is destruction and 

damage to the homes and apartments where people live, and the displacement of 

numerous families and individuals. Exduding second homes, more than 150,000 

housing units experienced substantial flooding as a result of Sandy, meaning that 

work on housing will be an early, continuing, and crucial part of the recovery and 

rebuilding effort. 

HUD's participation in ommine response and recovery efforts 

HUD has played a significant role in response to and recovery from past major 

storms, and is doing so with respect to Sandy as well. 

Before I describe some of HUD's activities, it is important to note the 

unprecedented cooperation that is taking place among Federal, State, local, and 

Tribal authorities. HUD, FEMA and other parts of the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS), as well as the Departments of Transportation, Health and Human 

Services, Interior, Commerce, and Agriculture, plus the Small Business 

Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and other agencies 

are all working together. For example, as a result of coordination under the 

National Response Framework (NRF), within a week after Sandy hit there were 

almost 11,000 National Guard and 17,000 Federal responders on the ground from 

FEMA, the Department of Defense, USACE, HUD, Department of Transportation, 

Department of Energy, and HHS, as well as tens of thousands of utility workers 

from across the nation. In addition, in the weeks since the storm, FEMA has 

approved approximately $3.5billion in emergency assistance and has paid over $5 

billion in flood insurance claims to help those insured rebuild their lives. We are 

all coordinating our work with State, local, and Tribal officials, who are doing a 

truly herculean job on the response and recovery. The private sector has been 

deeply involved as well. This unprecedented level of cooperation and partnership 

will help us continue to deliver recovery resources with speed and provide related 

assistance to the most affected areas. 

A key HUD priority after the storm was providing immediate help to stormdisplaced families to find temporary replacement housing, whether they were 

displaced from private or government-assisted housing. We identified thousands of 

housing units, including more than 12,000 available units in HUD-assisted housing, 

and have been working to ensure that the relevant information is provided to 

displaced individuals. We also have allowed providers of housing for seniors the 

flexibility to open up vacant units to storm evacuees. 

2 
75

HUD has also focused on help to persons living in and owners of HUD-assisted 

housing damaged or destroyed by the storm. This includes, for example, helping to 

temporarily house displaced persons, getting boilers and generators to impacted 

developments that house low-income families, and waiving administrative 

requirements (while ensuring appropriate safeguards) so as to facilitate the rapid 

delivery of safe and decent housing to displaced public housing authority (PHA) 

and multifamily housing residents. We have also increased fair market rental 

allowances to make it easier for displaced Section 8 voucher recipients to find 

replacement housing. 

HUD is working to encourage the private sector to help displaced families. Shortly 

after the storm, HUD Secretary Donovan reached out to several private sector 

organizations to encourage their involvement in this effort, and a number have 

stepped forward at least partially as a result. This recognizes the importance of 

engagement by the private sector as well as government in relief efforts. For 

example, Angie's List is providing free, one-year memberships to one thousand 

homeowners in the New York City tri-State area to help with Sandy relief by 

making it easier for families to find local contractors, auto repair specialists, and 

health care professionals who are highly rated by other consumers. Walk Score has 

launched a website to support people in search of temporary housing after Sandy. 

We have deplo,yed HUD personnel to help staffFEMA Disaster Recoyery Centers 

and do other storm-related work. This has included providing local housing 

resource help, program information, and other help to storm victims, mobilizing 

special needs providers from other States to assist families in shelters, and 

activating our Northeast network of field offices to communicate daily with 

impacted PHAs. 

There are more than 200,000 homeowners with FHA-insured mortgages in the 

affected areas in New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut HUD provided foreclosure 

protection for storm victims with FHA-insured mortgages through a mandatory 90-

day moratorium on foreclosures. That moratorium was extended for an additional 

90 days on January 31 of this year. 

We are also offering assistance to storm victims who must rebuild or replace their 

homes. In particular, FHA insurance is available to such disaster victims who seek 

new mortgages, and borrowers from participating FHA-approved lenders are 

eligible for 100 percent financing, including closing costs. HUD is also directing 

banks to provide insurance payments they receive related to the storm directly to 

homeowners, in order to avoid the problem that occurred after Hurricane Katrina 

where some mortgage companies used some insurance payments that were 

supposed to be used to rebuild damaged homes for other purposes. HUD is 

working to get information on these and other assistance efforts to affected 

homeowners. 

HUD is also providing help to affected State and local governments. Immediately 

after the storm, HUD hosted technical assistance conference calls with all HUD 

grantees. We have provided waivers of existing rules so that existing Federal CDBG 

and HOME funds can be used for disaster relief. Collectively, the CDBG and HOME 

3 
76

grant programs allow grantees to meet a broad range of needs, including housing, 

economic development, infrastructure, and the provision of public services. We are 

also working with State and local governments and tribes to develop interim 

housing plans and to provide loan guarantees for housing rehabilitation. 

The lonier term Sandy recovery and rebuildini efforts and the recent 

supplemental fundini provided by Coninss 

[n discussing the longer term Sandy recovery and rebuilding efforts and the recent 

supplemental funding provided by Congress, it is important to understand the 

background of the National Disaster Recovery Framework as well as the 

establishment of the Hurricane Sandy RebUilding Task Force. 

Early in his first term, President Obama recognized that our experience during 

Hurricane Katrina and other previous disasters highlighted the need for additional 

guidance, structure, and support to improve how we as a Nation address disasterrelated recovery and rebuilding challenges. In September 2009, President Obama 

charged the Departments of HUD and Homeland Security to work on this effort and 

to establish a Long Term Disaster Recovery Working Group, composed of more 

than 20 Federal agencies. HUD, DHS, and the Working Group consulted closely 

with State, local, and Tribal governments as well as experts and stakeholders, and 

worked to improve the Nation's approach to disaster recovery and to develop 

operational guidance for recovery efforts. 

In September 2011, FEMA published the National Disaster Recovery Framework 

(NDRF). The NDRF addresses the short, intermediate, and long-term challenges of 

managing disaster-related recovery and rebuilding. It sets forth flexible gUidelines 

that enable Federal disaster recovery and restoration managers to operate in a 

unified and collaborative manner and to cooperate effectively with State, local, 

Tribal, and territorial governments. The NDRF defines core recovery principles; 

roles and responsibilities of recovery coordinators and other stakeholders; flexible 

and adaptable coordinating structures to align key roles and responsibilities and 

facilitate coordination and collaboration with State,local, Tribal, and territorial 

governments and others; and an overall process by which communities can take 

advantage of opportunities to rebuild stronger, smarter, and safer after a disaster. 

The NRF and the NDRF contributed to the Federal government's ability to respond 

to and initiate recovery from the enormity of the devastation caused by Hurricane 

Sandy with a massive, multi-agency, multi-State coordinated response in support of 

State and local. Because Sandy was one ofthe most devastating and costly natural 

disasters in our history, the President recognized that the response required an 

additional focus on rebuilding efforts coordinated across Federal agencies and 

State, local, and Tribal governments in order to effectively address the enormous 

range of regional issues. 

On November 15, President Obama announced that HUD Secretary Donovan would 

provide coordination in support of our rebuilding efforts, and issued Executive 

Order 13632 on December 7,2012, providing that Secretary Donovan would serve 

as chair of the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force. 

4 
77

The Secretary's responsibilities in this role occur in coordination with the NDRF 

and involve cooperating closely with FEMA and the 20 other agencies already 

involved in recovery efforts. The focus of the Task Force is on coordinating Federal 

support as State, local and Tribal governments identify priorities, design individual 

rebuilding plans, and over time begin implementation. The Secretary is the Federal 

government's primary lead on engaging with States, Tribes, local governments, the 

private sector, regional businesses, non-profit, community and philanthropic 

organizations, and the public on long-term Hurricane Sandy rebuilding. 

On January 29, President Obama signed the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 

2013. The supplemental funding bill included funds for FEMA and USACE projects, 

Transportation, support for the Small Business Administration and its disaster loan 

program, and HUD Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery 

(CDBG-DR), funds to be provided to communities, and funding for a range of other 

critical priorities. 

Federal agencies and departments have already begun the process of making this 

money available to State local and Tribal governments in the region. HUD has 

announced the first round of allocations of CDBG-DR funding, totaling $5.4 billion. 

This represents the fastest ever allocation following the signing of an 

appropriations bill. HUD is working now on the second round of allocations, which 

will relate to damage caused by other storms in 2011 and 2012 that are included in 

the supplemental appropriation. 

The Task Force's role is not to dictate how funding is used - instead, it is to find 

ways to leverage and maximize the impact of federal dollars and to help 

communities access this funding and use it to support their development priorities. 

An example of the Task Force's efforts to date is working toward a data sharing 

arrangement that will allow SBA and HUD to provide State, local and Tribal 

governments with general information on small business disaster loan applications 

in areas impacted by Sandy. 

In addition to providing the necessary resources to continue ongoing response and 

recovery efforts, the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act also provides funding to 

help impacted communities effectively mitigate future risk of disaster to prevent 

losses of this magnitude from recurring. 

Science tells us that extreme weather events are likely to be more intense in the 

future, so it is vital that communities rebuild in a way that mitigates the risks posed 

under future conditions as well as current storms'; 

Both HUD and the Task Force look forward to continuing to work with this 

Subcommittee, others in Congress and our Federal, State, local, and Tribal partners 

to help make local rebuilding visions a reality - and to support communities that 

are rebuilding in a way that makes them stronger, more economically competitive 

and better prepared to withstand the next storm. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. Ms. McFadden and I would be 

happy to answer any questions you may have. 

5 
78

i NOAA's fact sheet at 

http://www.nrc.noaa.gov/plans docs/50S Fact Sheet Hurricanes and Climate FINAL May2012.pdf: 

"Studies available for the Atlantic Basin suggest increased hurricane intensity, hurricane rainfall rates and the 

numbers of the most intense hurricanes over the 21 st Century. I lowever, the projections for intensity and 

intense hurricane numbers in particular have relatively large uncertainty and further research is needed to 

increase understanding." 

6 
79

Frederick Tombar, III 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Fred Tombar is a Senior Advisor to U. S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development's Secretary Shaun Donovan. In this capacity, he 

leads the strategic direction, policy development, and assist in the 

coordination of operations of the Department's disaster and recovery 

programs. This is his second time serving at HUD. 

Prior to rejoining HUD, he was the President of Tombar Consulting 

Group, a management consulting firm dedicatcd to helping organizations 

transform their business processcs and improve their performance. He is 

a national expert in housing and community development policy. 

Mr. Tombar earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in Government from the University of Notre 

Dame. He later attended Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government where 

he earned a Master in Public Policy degree. He has more than 15 years of experience working 

to improve organizational performance, managing complex projects and operations, and 

developing housing policy. 

In response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Mr. Tombar directed a key project, the Road Home 

Program in Louisiana. This project served as the largest single housing recovery program in 

the history of the United States. 

Prior to forming Tombar Consulting Group, Mr. Tombar worked for the HUD's Federal 

Housing Administration for seven years where he worked to increase homeownership and 

rental housing opportunities for underserved communities. While serving as the Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Multifamily Housing at HUD, he managed operations for the 

development and asset management of more than 30,000 privately-owned multifamily housing 

projects, administered housing grant and subsidy programs of nearly $8 billion in annual 

appropriations, and provided oversight to nearly 2,000 staff in fifty-one offices nationwide. Mr. 

Tombar also served as a Principal Consultant at PricewaterhouscCoopers for five years where 

he led prQjects to improve the operations of public programs at the Federal, State and Local 

levels of government. 

Mr. Tombar is the recipient of numerous awards including twice being named a Distinguished 

Rcgulatory Partner by the National Affordable Housing Managers Association and the 

Outstanding HUD Official by the National Alliance ofHUD Tenants. He is a Harry S. Truman 

Scholar and a Notre Dame Scholar. He is the recipient of both the Notre Dame Distinguished 

Leader award and a Distinguished Black Exemplar award. 

Mr. Tombar is a founding member and Trustee of Advance Church of Silver Spring, Maryland. 

He currently lives in Fi. Washington, Maryland with his wife, Jilla, daughter, Chloe; son, 

Frederick IV; and new daughter, Calliope. 
80

Mr. LATHAM. Ms. McFadden, did you have a statement? 

Ms. MCFADDEN. I do not, sir. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Again, thanks to everyone. 

We will be operating under the 5-minute rule. We are actually 

going to enforce it today. We will have some votes here within an 

hour, so we need to keep moving. 

I will start with the task force itself. It was created in December. 

It is a new player in the disaster recovery business. I am not sure 

if we are totally aware of what its role is. 

Ms. McFadden, I am just wondering, are you planning on utilizing the entire $8 million for the DRF, and how many people have 

you hired? How many more you expect to hire? Are there people 

detailed from other agencies? If you could, give us the number and 

where those people are. Is there an organizational chart for the 

task force? 

Ms. MCFADDEN. Okay. Thank you for your questions. Be happy 

to make an organizational chart available to you. 

We currently have 48 members on board, which represents 29 

new hires under the Stafford Act; one volunteer on an OPA from 

a nonprofit organization; and the balance are detailees, the bulk 

coming from HUD. We also have DHA-FEMA detailees, and Energy and NOAA detailees to the task force. We are expecting to use the almost $8 million provided to us 

through an IAA with FEMA. We have about eight members in New 

York and eight members in New York—excuse me, in New Jersey, 

and the balance in Washington. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Have you convened or presided at meetings 

of the task force so far? And, if so, who all attended? If there are 

some examples about how you have worked with FEMA, or is there 

a schedule for the rebuilding strategy? 

Ms. MCFADDEN. Yes, sir. We have convened meetings of the Cabinet members. We have virtually the entire Cabinet participating. 

We have also had designees provided from 20 different agencies established in the Executive Order, and informal meetings. We are 

meeting with different working groups essentially weekly. 

I am sorry. Please tell me the rest of your question, sir. 

Mr. LATHAM. Well, working with FEMA—and is there a schedule 

for the rebuilding strategy? 

Ms. MCFADDEN. The Executive Order asked for a rebuilding 

strategy to be submitted to the President within 180 days of the 

first convening, which was February 5th. So we took that out to 

August 2nd. 

And, yes, we are working very closely with FEMA, both here in 

Washington, and in New York and New Jersey, close coordination 

with the joint field offices. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. If the task force, I guess, is supposed to disband after 60 days when the strategy is completed, how are you 

going to monitor the progress and have accountability at that 

point?

Ms. MCFADDEN. So we have established the project management 

organization function which grows out of the Recovery Act as a way 

of ensuring transparency and the spend across the Federal Government. And we are very much cognizant of the fact that we will be 

gone by the end of the fiscal year and the need to root that func-
81

tion, as well as all of the various policy issues and areas that we 

are looking at, a need for permanent owners across the interagency.

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Can you tell us how much has been expended on travel, and what is the plan for future travel expenditures? The plan we have seen includes $295 per night for hotels, 

which is above the per diem. Explain to us how you can circumvent 

the per diem rates. The plan also includes $3.3 million for contract services to include strategic counseling and stakeholder management consulting. 

If you could tell us how those contracts were competed, and who 

was awarded the contracts, the period of performance, and a copy 

of the 180-day work plan for the contracts. If you could provide 

those, actually, outside. 

Ms. MCFADDEN. I would be happy to provide you with everything 

that you have requested, sir. 

We have no intent of going beyond the per diem, so I am not sure 

where that—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Two hundred ninety-five is in your spending plan. 

Ms. MCFADDEN. I will look into that. It may be that it is an estimate based on New York rates and New Jersey rates. But I will 

get back to you with that information. 

In terms of the period of the performance for the contracts, we 

are not expecting to use contractors throughout the entire duration 

of the 180 days. The period of performance was stacked at the beginning of the task force during start-up phase. When we were unable to fully staff the task force, we relied on contracts, one contract that had been competed by the Department. 

Mr. LATHAM. So it is all under one contract? 

Ms. MCFADDEN. The bulk is under one contract, sir. We did request funding for the ability to do stakeholder management contracts, but we have not utilized that authority yet. And we also 

have one staff member who is provided under contract for secretarial services. But the bulk is the strategic contract. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. My time is up. 

Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield to the ranking 

member.

Mr. LATHAM. Yes. If you would like an opening statement. We 

welcome Mrs. Lowey. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you so much. And I would like to thank 

Chairman Latham and our witnesses and congratulate my friend 

from Arizona from becoming the new ranking member of this great 

subcommittee. And I thank the witnesses for appearing before us 

this morning. 

Whether it is a low flood insurance estimate for homeowners or 

a small business disaster loan with less than ideal terms, I have 

heard numerous complaints from my constituents that the assistance has been inadequate, and resources aren’t comprehensive. 

Mr. Tombar, I applaud the Department for recently allocating 

$5.4 billion of the $16 billion Community Development Block 

Grants that you received in the Sandy supplemental. I hope you 

will spend some of your testimony—and I hope I didn’t miss all of 

it—elaborating on what methodology HUD used to calculate this 
82

initial allocation, and how HUD made the determination to 

prioritize certain counties over others. The Sandy relief bill also included almost $11 billion for the 

newly authorized Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program, which will repair and prevent future damage to transit systems. As you know, numerous subway tunnels flooded; took months 

to restore full service to all areas. And since New York and New 

Jersey depend heavily on public transportation in their daily lives, 

it is incredibly important that these repairs and improvements are 

advanced in a timely manner. 

So I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I will save my 

question for when it is my turn. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Mr. Pastor, do you have questions? 

Mr. PASTOR. I have some questions, but— 

Mrs. LOWEY. You want me to ask questions? 

Mr. PASTOR. I will yield to her. I will get my 5 minutes. 

Mrs. LOWEY. You are so kind. 

Mr. PASTOR. She started with CDBG. I am also interested in how 

they got to that number and how they are going to allocate it. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Okay. So after many months of touring my district 

and speaking to hundreds of small business owners and homeowners affected by Sandy, I have determined that both Rockland 

and Westchester Counties suffered roughly equal damage from 

Hurricane Sandy. I have reviewed FEMA’s unmet individual assistance and SBA’s disaster loan program data. They confirm my onthe-ground experience. Yet Rockland is categorized as a most impacted and distressed county, while Westchester is not. 

So can you please explain to me what estimates and methodology 

were used for determining the most impacted and distressed counties designation in the initial round of allocations, and should I be 

concerned that Westchester will not get all the support it needs 

through the CDBG program because it lacks this designation? And 

how will HUD allocate the remaining two-thirds of the funds? And, 

like Rockland, could Westchester also be designated a most impacted and distressed county in future awards? 

Mr. TOMBAR. Thank you, ma’am, for your question. 

Let me first say that we have a very detailed description of the 

methodology that we use for allocations that we will provide to the 

subcommittee following. But I will try my best to summarize the 

procedure that we use, without embarrassing the statisticians and 

economists who worked on this back at our headquarters office. 

UNMET NEEDS

Essentially you pointed out two sources of data that feed into 

what we call an unmet needs analysis. The methodology that we 

have used for HUD disaster recovery funds is to try, to the extent 

possible, to meet the unmet needs, if not totally on a pro rata basis. 

So we will look across the damaged and impacted areas to determine unmet needs based upon FEMA registrations and their analysis of the extent of damage. And subsequently and especially for 

business losses, we will look at the SBA applications and their estimates of damage, and what is covered by both of those agencies, 

and what is estimated to be covered by private insurance. And that 

gives us a sense of what the unmet needs are. 
83

I should say that this first allocation focused specifically on the 

needs of—the unmet needs from housing and from business loss. 

They did not take into account what it usually is, the largest driver 

of an unmet needs analysis, and that is infrastructure damage. 

And the reason we did not take that into account is because it typically takes FEMA much longer to arrive at determinations of what 

the overall infrastructure damage to disaster-impacted areas is. 

They go through an extensive process through—their project worksheet process, they call it—and based on that, will identify what 

those needs are. 

You asked about subsequent allocations. There are a couple that 

you can expect. One is Congress directed us to use the money that 

was provided in disaster CDBG supplemental funding not only for 

Hurricane Sandy-impacted areas, but also to go back and look at 

those areas impacted in calendar year 2011 and other disasters of 

2012. We have not made the allocations to those impacted places 

yet, but we will plan to do so sometime in the near future. 

There is also a requirement in the appropriation that we make 

funds available for disasters that occurred this calendar year. And, 

obviously, we need to wait until December 31st to know conclusively the impacts of disasters this calendar year. 

So we will make that allocation for 2011 and 2012 disasters. 

There will be another one for 2013 disasters sometime subsequent 

to this calendar year. And once we have a better understanding of 

the infrastructure unmet needs, we will make an allocation based 

upon that. And it is very likely that the determination about the 

most impacted counties will broaden, change in some way, and we 

will make our allocations accordingly. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. 

Ms. Granger. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I don’t know whether this question is to Ms. McFadden or Mr. 

Tombar, because you both talked about the task force. But do you 

plan to provide progress reports as you develop the plans? 

Mr. TOMBAR. That is hers. 

Ms. GRANGER. Ms. McFadden. 

Ms. MCFADDEN. We are providing those reports to the White 

House, and to the NEC and NSF staff, and the Domestic Policy 

Council.

Ms. GRANGER. So we could have that access also? 

Ms. MCFADDEN. I believe so. 

Mr. TOMBAR. Yes. 

Ms. GRANGER. Okay. And I have another question, and this is for 

Mr. Tombar. And it has to do with the supplemental $16 billion for 

community housing. For Sandy and other eligible disasters for 2011 

through 2013, could you give me an example or some examples of 

the past natural disaster projects, and also how you are handling 

concerns that monies for those would take away from money for 

Sandy’s efforts? 

Mr. TOMBAR. Thank you, ma’am. It is a very good question. 

As the chairman mentioned, there are places that were impacted 

by disasters last year, in calendar year 2011. In fact, it was one 
84

of the worst disaster years on record. I think there were some disasters, major disasters, in 48 States totaling over 80 in total. And 

the chairman mentioned that this subcommittee provided $400 million in disaster CDBG that we have allocated to those places that 

were most impacted. 

DISASTER MITIGATION

The language, as you point out, in the disaster supplemental that 

was just provided by Congress directs the Department to go back 

and I call it ‘‘plus up’’ those places. The $400 million, while a very 

generous allocation, appropriation to us, wasn’t enough for us to allocate to the total estimates of unmet need that existed. So what 

we are doing is taking into account the allocations we have already 

made, the details on the unmet needs that remain, and making a 

subsequent allocation that will be forthcoming, I would imagine, 

within 2 or 3 weeks that will give additional resources to address 

those unmet needs that remain. 

For 2013, I would like to tell the Secretary that we canceled all 

disasters for 2013 so we don’t have to worry about that, but I am 

not as good of a predictor of the future as I would like to be. So 

the plan is to hold back some of the appropriation that you all provided to the Department to address those as, in fact, we have been 

directed to do. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 

Mr. LATHAM. Could I just use some of your time here? 

Ms. GRANGER. You may, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. What was your request for 2011? Four hundred 

million was greater than what you requested, wasn’t it? 

Mr. TOMBAR. I cannot remember the details of that request. I 

don’t recall. 

Mr. LATHAM. How did you come up with $17 billion this time, 

and you way undershot what it was in 2011, where the 33 cents 

on the dollar of damage, and this is about a $4 to $5 per dollar of 

damage?

Mr. TOMBAR. Sure. The way we arrived at the numbers from one 

year to the next I cannot answer with complete certainty now, but 

we can follow up with a question on that. But I will say that we 

do recognize that $400 million, given the extent of the damage last 

year——

Mr. LATHAM. You don’t know what the request was from the administration?

Mr. TOMBAR. I don’t recall it was. It was made several months 

ago, and I am sorry, I can’t remember the details. I don’t want to 

make something up without full recall. 

I should say about the $16 billion that has been provided, one 

of the things that we know is that it is—and in your own State, 

actually, Cedar Rapids proves this point—that it is very important 

to, as States and communities recover from disasters, to do projects 

that will mitigate against future disasters. The mitigation, unfortunately, is a lot more costly than building back as it was. And so 

you will see in the principles of the requests that we put forward 

this time from the President—— 

Mr. LATHAM. That was in 2008. 
85

Mr. TOMBAR. Yes, sir, I understand. But what Cedar Rapids did 

with the funds in 2008 puts it in a better position should another 

disaster of that type happen in that community. By moving everyone out of the Time Check neighborhood, it assures that, as floods 

have happened in that community before, that when it floods 

again, that there will be nothing for it to destroy. 

Mr. LATHAM. You are out of time, Ms. Granger. 

Ms. GRANGER. You used it very well. 

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Quigley. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

D.C. can be a very isolating place. I haven’t toured the sites, as 

Mrs. Lowey and many others have, but I think it is fair to not confuse activities and organizational charts with effectiveness. When 

will things get fixed? Now, we can’t control everything that local 

governments do and how quickly they move even in coordination 

with us, but for the things we can control, as with the FAA, what 

is the time frame? When will most of these things be repaired? 

When will they all be done? 

Mr. PORCARI. It is an excellent question. Starting with aviation— 

and, again, we had four airports that were essentially closed, 

LaGuardia, JFK, Newark and Teterboro. The work on the navigational aids, we had, first of all, prepositioned supplies and personnel before the storm hit. We had generators with a week’s 

worth of fuel ready to go. Given the intensity of the storm, some 

of the navigational and other facilities were actually destroyed. So 

in the case of an instrument landing system, for example, that had 

to be replaced, we had the spare parts in our depot in Oklahoma 

City. We built it there, built it in a trailer there, transported it to 

the site. And we had partial openings at several of the airports 

within the first 24 hours. 

I should also mention before the storm hit, working with the airlines, they pulled down their schedules in advance so that aircraft, 

crews, and passengers were not stranded at the airports. 

At the same time, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, they operate the four airports, was repairing their portion of 

the equipment, which included the landing lights, taxiway lights, 

and other air-side equipment. 

We were very pleased that as the water levels receded, we were 

able to remove debris, get the NAV aids back up, and have partial 

service very quickly in the airports. 

With transit, because most of the tunnels flooded, it was more 

difficult. The recovery started with bus bridges, for example, using 

buses instead of heavy rail and commuter rail systems. I had mentioned in my testimony that with the General Services Administration, we had procured up to 250 buses that were privately procured 

to use on a temporary basis for New Jersey Transit. In New York 

and Connecticut, bus bridges were used as well. 

From our perspective, there was an extraordinary level of cooperation with the transit systems throughout the storm event and 

afterwards in restoring service. I would point out that there are 

portions of the transit system that are still not reopened because 

of the damage, but the bulk of the regional system is operating. 

On the highway side, for the Federal-aid-eligible highways, our 

long-established emergency relief program in New Jersey, New 
86

York, and Connecticut in particular moved very quickly to get that 

ER funding out to the recipients. We have a day-to-day working relationship through our division administrators with those State 

DOTs. As they identified damage, they had contractors in place 

through preapproved contracts, got the work done, and in some 

cases we got the emergency relief funding on the highway side out 

to them within hours of their request. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Given the limited time we have, can you give me 

your best guess on when the balance of things would be repaired 

to the extent you possibly can tell. 

Mr. PORCARI. In general terms, most of the highway work is 

done. The aviation work is largely done. Rebuilding our spares inventory and doing mitigation, raising and hardening some of the 

aviation structures, some of that still needs to be done. 

The real work is on the transit side. There are cases in some of 

the flooded tunnels where the entire signaling system was ruined 

because of the saltwater, and it will be 24, 36 months or more in 

some cases before full restoration of those facilities. 

Again, the systems are operating on a stop-gap basis. The permanent repairs and the mitigation work, which will harden the system in the future, will take much longer; in some cases, a matter 

of years. I would say that we already have allocated on the transit 

side about almost $400 million. We actually have outlays on the 

highway side, and we are working on a daily basis with our partners on the local and State level. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Quigley. 

Ms. Herrera Beutler, do you have any questions? 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. No, thank you. 

Mr. LATHAM. All right. Mr. Price. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend you for holding 

this hearing on this very important topic. And I also thank the witnesses for their testimony and the good work that both Departments are doing. 

As the ranking member on Homeland Security, I want to focus 

in both the case of HUD and DOT on the intersection between the 

FEMA efforts and your Departments’ efforts and the way this coordination is taking place going forward. 

So I want to start with HUD. As Mrs. Lowey already noted, 

HUD has been required to make initial awards of 33 percent within 60 days of enactment of the supplemental, and those allocations 

have taken place. Her focus was on what determined the allocations in the initial round. I want to focus on the uses to which that 

money is being put, and particularly on the intersection with 

FEMA’s housing efforts, both the immediate response and the 

longer term. 

I visited New York last week with Chairman Carter of our subcommittee. We were able to go to lower Manhattan as well as to 

the Rockaways and some of the beach areas that were most affected. One of the things that is immediately striking, certainly in 

lower Manhattan, but also across the region that we saw, is there 

are no FEMA trailers. For better or worse, that is a problem we 

don’t have. 
87

One of the reasons there are no FEMA trailers, as I understand 

it, is there is no place to put FEMA trailers in many of these areas. 

But, more seriously, there has been a decision to handle emergency 

housing, short-term relief, in a different way. And as I understand 

it, that was a decision in which you participated and where some 

CDBG money has facilitated this solution. People are being put 

back in their homes much more quickly. And there are emergency 

repairs going on, as I understand it, even when there might be 

some questions in some cases about the long-term habitability of 

that home. People are being put back in their homes, where possible, through emergency repairs. And then, hopefully, many of 

those places can be more extensively repaired, and people can stay 

in their neighborhoods. 

In other cases, they won’t be repaired. Some of those areas may 

be cleared. There will be mitigation efforts to rebuild back more 

soundly and, in some cases, to clear areas that are just going to be 

vulnerable no matter what we do. 

So I know that there has been a blending of CDBG and FEMA 

efforts in this endeavor. I am not sure that I understand the division of labor every step of the way. I know the CDBG monies are 

being used to provide matches in many cases. 

But I wish you could elaborate. I would appreciate your elaborating what the mix of funding, the mix of efforts has been here. 

And then maybe also reflect on not just the positive sides, but some 

of the possible downsides of this approach, because do you have to 

wonder in some of these cases where this housing has been very 

severely damaged whether we may be creating facts on the ground, 

so to speak, that actually will make long-term mitigation, longterm rebuilding more difficult, or at least that is one conceivable 

outcome, of course, that we want to avoid. So I wonder if you could 

just, first of all, outline the effort and then address these issues. 

HUD/FEMA FUNDS

Mr. TOMBAR. Sure. Thank you, Congressman Price. 

As you pointed out there is an intersection, in fact a pretty considerable intersection, between the work of HUD and FEMA. It begins, actually, before the storm even hits the shores of the United 

States, we work together on coordination, on responses. As I pointed out in my testimony, we actually deployed HUD staff to work 

in FEMA’s disaster recovery centers, and did a wholesale inventory 

of our portfolio of properties that had units available, and made 

those available to disaster-impacted families. This is something 

that we routinely do, and certainly was done in the case of Hurricane Sandy. 

As Congresswoman Lowey’s question pointed out, there is a reliance on FEMA data as well as SBA data in our allocation decisions 

about where unmet needs exist. And so it is based upon those data 

that we actually made the allocation, the initial allocation, of the 

$5.4 billion, as you pointed out. 

You mentioned the emergency repair program. This is a program 

that FEMA did under its authority for the first time, and that was 

to address, where there are opportunities, the low-hanging fruit, if 

you will, homes that could be repaired rather briefly, quickly with 
88

minor repairs of less than $10,000 to get people back in their 

homes.

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. The gentleman’s time has expired. We 

are trying to get around to everybody this morning. 

Mr. Joyce. 

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you, Chairman. And I would certainly give 

any of my 5 minutes to you if you had follow-up on the question 

that you ran out of time on. 

Mr. LATHAM. No. 

Mr. JOYCE. Okay. 

Thank you for coming. 

Mr. Tombar, if you would, do you know, is there any significant 

data that shows that due to the Hurricane Sandy, that buildings 

have been abandoned? 

Mr. TOMBAR. There indeed are some buildings that have been 

completely destroyed by the storm in places. So, yes, they have had 

to, because of safety reasons, been abandoned. 

Mr. JOYCE. Will a significant amount of the money that has been 

appropriated to you be used to demolish those buildings? 

Mr. TOMBAR. The demolition is typically covered by FEMA public 

assistance. So we don’t expect that HUD CDBG dollars will necessarily be used in demolition since there is already a source of 

funding in the Federal Government for that. But there could be 

projects for which there is a gap in the FEMA assistance that HUD 

may come along, and HUD’s funding may come along and match 

the FEMA assistance to help with some of those projects. It is conceivable. But by and large, FEMA’s assistance covers those types 

of things under public assistance. 

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield my time to the ranking member.

Mr. LATHAM. The Gentlelady is recognized. 

Mrs. LOWEY. I just want to thank the Chairman and the generosity of my friend Ranking Member Pastor. 

It is true that my district has experienced the one—what do they 

say, once-in-100-year storms twice in the last 2 years, with Hurricane Irene and Sandy. And as I visit with my homeowners and 

business owners, you see that they are really making some very 

critical decisions: Should they repair? Should they relocate? So getting this information early and the assistance they need is so very 

important.

I wanted to follow up with you, Mr. Tombar, because HUD announced $5.4 billion for the initial round of CDBG allocations. And 

the allocated funds were made to address the unmet housing and 

economic revitalization needs for Hurricane Sandy. However, the 

allocation does not reflect unmet needs from Hurricane Irene or 

Tropical Storm Lee, even though grantees like New York State 

plan to address these needs in their proposed CDBG action plans. 

So for my homeowners that are trying to figure things out, who 

have unmet needs from both hurricanes, it would be very helpful 

if they had received all the funding at once so that they can really 

plan, enter into contracts to repair their homes. 
89

Why didn’t HUD include unmet needs for these past storms into 

its calculations for this allocation? And I just wonder how that decision was made. I guess you were concerned that you would be taking funds from Sandy if you dealt with the other unmet needs, but 

very often one builds upon the other. 

Mr. TOMBAR. Certainly. And let me say I can appreciate the pain 

and the anguish that you go through just seeing the impact on your 

community. I am a New Orleans native and actually had the experience of going back to New Orleans after the storm and running 

the housing recovery program for the State of Louisiana following 

that storm, hurricane Katrina, and know that this is—the work 

that you are talking about has a real and human impact. 

But to get to your question about the allocation and its use not 

only for Hurricane Sandy victims, but for Hurricane Irene and 

Tropical Storm Lee victims, we have given the State of New York 

the ability to use its portion of the $5.4 billion allocation to address 

the needs from last year’s disasters as well. 

The truth of the matter is, as I said in my initial answer to your 

first question, is that we will be coming behind and giving additional funding to the State of New York primarily driven by the 

needs that will arise from infrastructure damage yet unseen. I will 

tell you from my own experience, the $1.8 billion that has been allocated, while the needs are great, recovery is hard, and it will take 

a while for them to spend all of that money. 

And so knowing what the needs are and what the plans were for 

last year’s disasters, what we suspect will happen is that those will 

be addressed first and foremost because they are already, if you 

will, in the pipeline. So I would expect that your constituents would 

see immediate assistance given to them from this initial allocation. 

And given the fact that there needs to be planning and infrastructure capacity, if you will, put in place to address the more current 

needs from Hurricane Sandy, we would expect that that money 

would start to spend a little bit later. 

Mrs. LOWEY. Perhaps I will just ask one more, couple of minutes 

left, of Deputy Secretary Porcari. 

In February, the FTA issued a notice soliciting applications for the first $2 billion in recovery funding, and less than $500 million 

has been awarded for repair and recovery thus far. Is there anything you are doing that could speed up the remaining $1.5 billion? 

And could you update us on how the Department intends to allocate the remaining funds? 

Mr. PORCARI. It is an excellent question. First I need to again 

thank the committee for the appropriation for Sandy relief. We are 

trying to move both quickly and carefully, and so, for example, we 

have set up a financial stewardship task force as part of this and 

brought in our inspector general as part of the process, so as the 

funds are expended, we know we are doing it right. 

But of the first $2 billion, the intention with that for the Federal 

Transit Administration is to reimburse as quickly as possible for 

work already done to alleviate some of the cash-flow issues for the 

transit systems. That $390 million—and you will very shortly see 

subsequent awards on that—has been doing that. We have been 

working, literally, on a daily basis with the transit agencies. And 

as we go past the $2 billion mark, the interim final rule which es-
90

tablishes the emergency relief program for the Federal Transit Administration is well along, it is under review right now, it will be 

followed by guidance very shortly. We expect that that rule and 

guidance will be in place before the allocation of the full $2 billion. 

So there will be no interruption to the transit systems, Amtrak, or 

the regional rail operations. We are trying to balance moving the 

money out the door to the agencies quickly with the need to make 

sure that we have the proper controls in place. 

I should also mention it started immediately in the aftermath of 

the storm with the mission assignment that FEMA gave us for 

project management oversight, where we used our project management oversight contractors to look at the damage. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you very much. 

Mr. PORCARI. Thank you. 

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Dent. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you. I appreciate you all being here today. 

Sandy, obviously, was a big issue for me. I had a half a million 

people in my congressional district, half a million people out of 

power. Thankfully the storm, the brunt of the storm, did not hit my 

constituency as we had anticipated by the modeling. Sadly, for our 

friends in the East, in New Jersey and New York, they took the 

brunt of it and paid a very heavy price. That said, we had some 

real impacts in the Eastern Pennsylvania. 

But my main concern today is about the—I guess, some of the 

housing programs. I think the first round of allocations for CDBG 

disaster relief was about $5.4 billion, if I am not mistaken. 

What is the interaction between the existing CDBG funds and 

many of these relief funds that you are overseeing? 

Mr. TOMBAR. Thank you, Congressman, for your question. 

EXISTING/SUPPLEMENTAL CDBGS

The existing CDBG funds, as I point out in my testimony, and 

HOME funds that are existing, immediately after the storm declaration of disaster we make those funds known to our grantees 

that they have the ability to request waivers from us to use those 

funds for disaster recovery and relief efforts should they choose. 

While we made that offer, none of the existing grantees actually executed in this particular case a decision to do that. We had no requests for waivers there. 

The supplemental CDBG funds really in a substantial way provide enough resources to address the needs that are there. That 

which these grantees typically get on an annual basis in terms of 

appropriation usually is—far outweighs the needs that communities have that are directly hit by major disasters, major catastrophic disasters like Hurricane Sandy. So what the subcommittee 

did this time is what we have seen happen in the past to help address those needs that we know are unmet by existing resources. 

Mr. DENT. I know you have allowed for waivers for CDBG 

HOME dollars. Are the relief funds, are they being firewalled at 

all?

Mr. TOMBAR. In what way, sir? 

Mr. DENT. Well, firewalled from—you know, I’ll say the CDBG 

funds and the relief funds. Is there any firewalls there? 
91

Mr. TOMBAR. Well, those funds have to be used specifically to address impacts of the disaster. That is what the Congress directed 

us, and that is certainly what we are providing in a way of our notice as guidance to the grantees, that their plans must be tied to 

the impacts of the disaster, and that the funding must be used in 

that way. 

Mr. DENT. Okay, because we have had some issues where I have 

seen some communities I will say misappropriate CDBG funds. I 

saw one of those in my own community actually, and it is just an 

issue that has been a concern to me, that the CDBG funds are— 

they are being used for the purposes for which they are intended. 

And I had written the Department about this previously. And I just 

wanted to make sure that there is no abuse of these funds, particularly in the aftermath of the storm. Again, my constituency was hit 

extremely hard by this; more wind damage thankfully, very little— 

no flood damage in my areas. But that is my main concern. 

I thank you for your attention, and I will yield back to the chairman.

Mr. LATHAM. Thank the gentleman. 

HUD published a notice of requirement that any rebuilding must 

include a green standard. Is there a statutory requirement for this 

under the block grants? 

Mr. TOMBAR. No, sir, there is not a statutory requirement. 

Mr. LATHAM. Is there a requirement in the supplemental? 

Mr. TOMBAR. The supplemental request that the President made, 

as I was saying in an earlier answer, said that we—we were requesting the funds in a supplemental to—in addition to just addressing the needs that exist, to mitigate against future disasters 

and to build back, quite frankly, smarter, safer, and stronger than 

what existed previously. And knowing that—— 

Mr. LATHAM. So there is no requirement. 

Mr. TOMBAR. Excuse me? 

Mr. LATHAM. There is no requirement from the supplemental? 

Mr. TOMBAR. No, sir. No specific requirement for the standards 

that are there. But there is the flexibility for us to make policy determinations.

Mr. TOMBAR. But there is the flexibility for us to make policy determinations about what, in fact, would be—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Where do you get that authority? 

Mr. TOMBAR. From the supplemental. 

Mr. LATHAM. There is no mandate, so you are doing just whatever you want to, any requirements you want to with the money. 

No authorization. 

Mr. TOMBAR. Not at all, sir. What we are doing is taking advantage of what is an opportunity. Unfortunately, catastrophes like 

Hurricane Sandy both present us with a challenge and with an opportunity, and the opportunity there is to build back, as I say, 

smarter, safer, and stronger than what existed previously. 

REBUILDING SMARTER

When a home is substantially destroyed, and it may be an existing home with old windows and doors and things like that, it 

makes sense to build it back in a way that is more—that would be 

more economically feasible going forward and offers better energy 
92

efficiency for the residents, especially since the money, as you 

know, is directed by and large to low- and moderate-income people. 

Having the ability to put in high-efficiency windows, or high-efficiency HVAC systems that would lower their ongoing energy costs, 

that is something that, you know, that the Secretary made a determination.

Mr. LATHAM. You have the checklist and standard. How much 

additional is this going to increase the cost of the repairs? It is already a very expensive area. And also, is there an abundance of 

certified materials and contractors in the area to handle all this? 

Mr. TOMBAR. I am not sure about the supply chain for the materials in the area, but I will say that the cost of doing these type 

of things when there is a substantial rehabilitation or an overall 

complete rebuild are greatly diminished by doing it otherwise, if 

you were just to do a rehab on a home that did not require a huge 

level of rebuilding or rehabilitation. 

Mr. LATHAM. What is the payback? 

Mr. TOMBAR. There are studies that speak to that. 

Mr. LATHAM. Do you have those? 

Mr. TOMBAR. We can certainly provide those to the committee. 

Mr. LATHAM. I mean, it would take decades. I mean, these people 

are sitting out there right now, and you are increasing the costs 

dramatically, slowing down the whole process of them getting into 

a home again. On a commercial building, you could maybe see the 

benefit. But the payback on a lot of these is not going to be in these 

homes for that long. This to me is pretty—— 

Mr. TOMBAR. I can say from personal experience, I did—— 

Mr. LATHAM [continuing]. Amazing. 

Mr. TOMBAR [continuing]. Gut rehab on my home about 5 years 

ago, and it was a 1923 home that had beautiful stained-glass, 

wood-frame windows, but they didn’t hold anything in or nothing 

out. And we took advantage of the opportunity of doing a gut rehab 

to put in better windows, and my utility bills have gone down considerably. Put in high efficiency HVAC systems in place of the window units, and the oil-furnace heat, and have seen a return on investment.

When you are doing the type of repair and rebuild that homeowners are going to have to do now to get back in their homes, it 

makes sense to do these things that will in the future—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Where do you get the authority for the mandate? 

Mr. TOMBAR. Well, the authority comes directly from the supplemental itself. 

Mr. LATHAM. Is there a mandate that you do green projects? 

Mr. TOMBAR. No, sir. 

Mr. LATHAM. Right. 

Mr. TOMBAR. No mandate, but the authority. 

Mr. LATHAM. Right. There is no mandate. 

Mr. TOMBAR. No, sir. 

Mr. LATHAM. Right. 

My time is expired. 

Mr. Quigley. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Mr. Tombar, the question I asked earlier, to the 

best of your ability, in the end what people want to know is when 

will things be fixed? Given the time frame and how the sequences 
93

are going for funding, again, in this case some of this is out of our 

hands, but the opportunities are there for things to get done. If we 

had this hearing in 6 months, a year, 2 years, at each point what 

would you tell us percentagewise how much has returned to normal, how much has been rebuilt? 

SPENDING RATE

Mr. TOMBAR. So, there is a requirement that the Congress put 

on this money that from the time the money is obligated, that the 

grantees have 2 years to spend it. So we would expect that there 

would be a pretty rapid spend-down rate for this money. How does 

that translate in terms of percentage of overall rebuild? I really 

couldn’t tell you. I will tell you that it is difficult recovering from 

a disaster like this. It is difficult and often slow and incremental. 

And so—— 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Well, in the Gulf Coast there wasn’t enough 

money, and it didn’t come soon enough, right, to help everyone? 

Mr. TOMBAR. Some people’s judgment is that, yes, that there 

was——

Mr. QUIGLEY. Well, years later things weren’t done, right? 

Mr. TOMBAR. There are still needs that remain in the Gulf Coast. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. And how long ago was that? 

Mr. TOMBAR. Hurricane Katrina was in 2005. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. I am aware you understand this, but in the end 

that is the final analysis, sort of the grade we get as a country, how 

quickly does a community come back. So it had to have been one 

of the two: Either there wasn’t enough money, or it didn’t get to 

them soon enough that it took that long to restore and rebuild. Will 

those issues exist after Sandy? 

Mr. TOMBAR. Well, I will tell you, it is rather complex. We have 

grantees. For example, the State of Louisiana, in a year prior to 

Hurricane Katrina and the resources that were provided by the 

subcommittee to that State, they received around $30 million in 

CBDG funding. They went from $30 million to $13 billion. There 

was a need to create an infrastructure capacity for the spending of 

that money. 

That is going to be the challenge in all of the places that are 

looking to recover now. The money is provided to them, but they 

have to work to build that capacity to implement their programs 

and provide the assistance. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Let me put this another way. I have only been 

here 4 years, but you can feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day. 

I have been through this hearing before sort of scenario. You can 

appreciate that. 

Mr. TOMBAR. Certainly. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. So to spare those here in the future having to ask 

the same questions, maybe this is the best way to ask the question. 

When we look back, what are the questions when we say, why 

didn’t it get done sooner? So if we are here in 3 years, and everything is not done, and, heaven forbid, as long as it has been since 

the Gulf Coast, you know, the questions we are going to ask is why 

did it take so long? Why does it take so long, and what are the pitfalls that we need to overcome to get this done quickly? 
94

Mr. TOMBAR. I will tell you, part of the difficulty is at times the 

Federal Government, quite frankly, gets in the way. I know from 

my own experience on the ground working in post-Katrina recovery, housing recovery, that the agency I work at wasn’t always a 

good partner. 

The President made a directive to the entire Federal family, and 

that was, find ways to cut through red tape; find ways to help 

these communities recover as expeditiously and as thoroughly as 

possible. It is the main justification, I would say, for the Hurricane 

Sandy Rebuilding Task Force, which forces all of the Federal agencies to come together, come up with a comprehensive plan working 

with the State, local, and tribal communities to find out how we 

best can assist them and cut the red tape. I think that more than 

anything else this will have a positive impact on the speed of recovery and how well the recovery goes overall. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. I appreciate your candor and your efforts. 

Mr. TOMBAR. Thank you. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Quigley. 

I yield to the gentlewoman from Fort Worth. 

Ms. GRANGER. And I will give my time to Mr. Dent. 

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Dent. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you. 

Thank you, Representative Granger. 

Just a couple of things. As relates to Sandy supplemental fund- ing for the FTA, $10.9 billion, I know, for new emergency relief programs, up to $5.4 billion can be directed to mitigation efforts. I 

know on February 6th, you put out a notice of availability for $2 

billion, and you targeted those funds for local repair projects, grant 

requests for various transit agencies, including $390 million to 

SEPTA, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority. 

My main question is since you had this transfer authority up to $5.4 billion, these projects to reduce risk of damage from future 

disasters in the areas impacted by Hurricane Sandy, I am concerned that these precious emergency relief dollars might be diluted on the, say, nice to have but nonessential infrastructure 

projects. Can you elaborate a little bit on that? 

Mr. PORCARI. Congressman, it is a great question. We can’t afford to put any of these funds toward the nice-to-have projects. We 

are going to be very hard pressed, given the mitigation needs for 

the transit in inner-city passenger rail program, to even cover most 

of the critical funds. We are working through the task force—this 

is one of the values of the task force—to make sure that we have 

an across-the-board understanding of mitigation. We have been 

communicating directly with the transit agencies and Amtrak on 

some of the preliminary minimum qualifications for that mitigation.

But in general we know that, because we have been through two 

of these storms in the same metropolitan area in just under 2 

years, that we need to rebuild to a stronger standard. This is the 

cost-effective thing to do rather than to rebuild to the same standard every time. We are confident that we can cost-effectively use 

these mitigation dollars. While we are in the early stages of identifying projects, it is very clear that there will be more eligible 
95

projects that will be cost beneficial than we will have available 

funding.

Mr. DENT. All right. And you are going to be awarding these 

grants on a rolling basis. 

Mr. PORCARI. Yes, we will. 

Mr. DENT. Okay. And how is the Department of Transportation 

assessing the priority of the grants being issued? Is it on a first in, 

first out regardless of magnitude of damage, or how are you doing 

this?

Mr. PORCARI. Well, on the $2 billion that we have already noticed 

for award, that is for work that has already been done either internally through what are called force accounts at the transit agencies, the work that they contracted for immediately. So we are essentially reviewing invoices and documentation for work already 

done and reimbursing. As we go forward, it will be on a rolling 

basis, and we will competitively, on a merit basis, rank projects for 

mitigation eligibility. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you. I yield back to Representative Granger. 

Ms. GRANGER. I yield back my time. 

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentlewoman. 

Mr. Price. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Tombar, I want to give you a chance to finish your answer 

to my question. Of course, in the meantime questions are swirling 

around here about how quickly we can build back, whether we 

should build back to sounder standards, whether we should pay attention to mitigation and containing future costs and so forth. But 

all of this, of course, went into this decision I was focusing on to 

bypass some of the normal temporary housing steps, and to try to 

get people back in immediately to their homes with temporary repairs, sometimes as a prelude to longer-term repairs, sometimes 

not.

But I know that it involved a combination of FEMA and CBDG 

funds, and you are envisioning, of course, a CBDG world going forward. So I still needed to get to the transit issue, but I do want 

you to finish up the overview you were providing. 

REBUILDING RATE

Mr. TOMBAR. Sure. I will try to make it quick. 

Under the National Disaster Recovery Framework, there is a 

process by which we engage the Federal Government, led by HUD 

and FEMA, with the States through what is called the State-Led 

Housing Task Force. That task force actually makes the determinations about what will be the best forms of assistance given the impact of the disaster, given what the availability in resources are in 

the impacted area, of the types of assistance that will be provided. 

And so the absence of trailers, as you pointed out, in New York 

State was a decision driven by local governments and by the State 

and worked through with the Federal Government. We tried to find 

other sources of housing for people and have been successful in 

most cases. In New Jersey, we fortunately had a vacant military 

base that we were able to provide some repairs to units that were 

there and house a number of families there. There are trailers 

some of the communities in New Jersey have decided that they 
96

would want, and so those exist. Other people are being housed in 

apartments with their FEMA assistance. The FEMA assistance, though, is capped at $31,900. That is both 

for their rental assistance and for the repair cost of their home. 

And so the extent to which that money gets used to pay for rental 

assistance, it defrays from the amount of money available for the 

repair of the home. This is where CBDG comes in to help close that 

gap that exists between private insurance, the assistance that 

someone may have received from FEMA or SBA, any unmet needs 

that remain. 

Mr. PRICE. So the near-term use of the CBDG funds is heavily 

directed toward matches of that kind to close those gaps. 

Mr. TOMBAR. Well, typically the near-term assistance that you 

see the Federal Government giving is usually through FEMA and 

its resources out of the Disaster Relief Fund. HUD’s assistance can 

be used in cases if a State determines that—a State or local government determines that there is a need for it. But the immediate 

temporary housing assistance, that is authority and resources 

given to the Administrator of FEMA, and they are used in that way 

and have been in this particular instance. 

Mr. PRICE. So just to clarify, in this instance now, at what point 

do the CBDG funds enter the picture? 

Mr. TOMBAR. Typically for the rebuilding efforts. So it would be 

to rebuild and not for temporary housing. 

Mr. PRICE. But what about the short-term rebuilding to keep 

people in place temporarily? 

Mr. TOMBAR. Again, that was done with FEMA assistance. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. But the longer-term rebuilding is where the 

CBDG comes in and fills the gap? 

Mr. TOMBAR. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Mr. Porcari, the Transit Administration 

within your Department has received the bulk of the transportation 

funding, almost $11 billion, and you have been required to complete, which you have now completed, a Memorandum of Understanding with FEMA, and to develop interim regulations before the 

bulk of the funding can be awarded. 

Can you give us an update on that memorandum, the state of the 

interim regulations, when they are going to be finalized; and what 

kind of share at the end of the day you and FEMA are going to 

have for this work on the damaged transit infrastructure? 

Mr. PORCARI. It is a great question, sir. It has been a very good 

working relationship with FEMA. As you pointed out, the Memorandum of Agreement between FEMA and the Federal Transit Administration is already signed. Before that, working under a mission assignment from FEMA, we had our project management oversight contractors out there evaluating the damage for both FEMA 

and FTA. FEMA personnel were deployed with us as part of that. 

We expect that the interim final rule which is required by the 

appropriation will be in place well before we go through the first 

$2 billion of funding and into the next tranche of funding. The interim final rule in draft form will be out in the next several weeks. 

Draft guidance will immediately follow that. Mindful that this interim final rule and guidance will affect our response to future disasters as well, it needs to encompass the entire country and all 
97

kinds of emergencies that it might be used for, so we are trying to 

make sure that it is broad enough to incorporate all that. We are 

confident that we are well ahead of the curve in terms of having 

that interim final rule ready and the guidance that would be behind it. 

Mr. PRICE. My time is expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Joyce. Did you have another question? 

Does anyone have another question for the record? 

Mr. PASTOR. I will submit a question. 

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Price, did you want to continue? 

We are about to vote on the floor, so Members may have additional questions to submit for the record, to which I would hope you 

can respond. 

I just was going through the draft anyway of the green building 

retrofit checklist, which is several pages here, but you have got 

down to what kind of light bulbs you can put in, what kind of 

water systems can be installed. Any carpet products used must 

meet the Carpet and Rug Institute’s green label or green label-plus 

certification for carpet pad and carpet adhesives. 

One thing, I would ask for the record what the request was for 

the storms in 2011. 

Is this stuff available? I mean, you are going to keep people out 

of their homes. When you go through the checklist, it is unbelievable that is the case—and I would hope that we could streamline 

the situation. 

A lot of people are very much in need that need to get back into 

some type of shelter, and without any kind of authority to do this 

type of thing, I am concerned that we are not going to be using a 

lot of money to the best use long term. 

So anyway, with no other questions, we will adjourn the hearing. 

Thank you all very much. 

[Questions for the record follow:] 
98

Mr. Pastor #1 

Sequestration 

Question: How do your agencies plan to implement sequestration for these funds? Will you 

take it of the top or will it hit each project specifically? 

Answer: The sequestration reduction to the CDBG-DR funding appropriated by P.L. 113-2 

is significant, reducing by $800 million the total amount available for allocation. However, BUD 

has not and will not reduce any announced allocations due to sequestration and all related grants 

will be for the announced amounts. The lower funding level will reduee overall funds available 

in response to Hurrieane Sandy or any qualifying events that may oecur in calendar year 2013. 
99

Mr. Pastor #2 

Lessons Learned from Previous Disasters 

Question: What lessons did each of your agencies learn trom Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and 

Wilma? How are you applying those lessons as you administer the Hurricane Sandy funds? 

Answer: The Department has learned cumulative lessons in the use ofCDBG funding for 

disaster recovery purposes over the past 20 years and is bringing that experience to bear on the use 

offunds provided by P.L. 113-2. While it must be understood that each major disaster has its 

unique aspects. certain basic tenets apply when HUD receives CDBG-DR funding. HUD has 

learned that it is critical to: 

• assist grantees in identifying needs and potential responses; 

• provide resources quickly; 

• be accessible to provide guidance and technical assistance; 

• be sure grantees have well detined policies and procedures and follow them; 

• have grantees establish performance timeframes and benchmarks; and 

• undertake a rigorous monitoring and review regime to protect taxpayer funds and ensure 

grantees have complied with program requirements. 

In response to Hurricane Sandy, HUD has and will continue to respond to these tenets in a 

variety of ways. The Department has undertaken extensive efforts to guide Sandy CDBG-DR 

grantees through the initial action plan process by providing training, technical assistance and 

regular consultations. The Department provided resources quickly as Secretary Donovan 

announced the initial allocation of $5.4 billion in CDBG-DR funding 8 days after P.L. 113-2 was 

signed into law and quickly issued a Federal Register Notice governing the funds. The Notice 

makes it clear that grantees must have a range of policies. procedures and reporting mechanisms to 

adequately manage the funds. HUD established internal processes to ensure rapid review of 

disaster recovery action plans and has quickly announced approval of several plans. Overall, 

HUD will continue to provide a high level of support to the Sandy CDBG-DR grantees to ensure 

they successfully implement their recovery programs. 

In the course of implementing CDBG-DR, the Department has learned that grantees require 

substantial technical assistance in the initial design and implementation of recovery programs. 

Therefore. in March 2013, the Department convened a two-and-a-half day training session for 

recipients, bringing together new and current grantees and critical staff from the Department, the 

Department's Office of the Inspector General and other federal agencies. Also, within 30 days of 

the enactment ofP.L. 113-2. the Department initiated weekly technical assistance calls with the 

three highest risk grantees (New York State, New Jersey and the City of New York); scheduled 

technical assistance providers to assist grantees on site; and initiated technical assistance meetings 

with grantees in their jurisdictions. 
100

Mr. Pastor #3 

Lessons Learned from Previous Disasters 

Question: What measures is your agency taking to ensure that reviews and procedures are 

applied simultaneously rather than sequentially? 

Answer: To the greatest extent possible, HUD expedites CDBO-DR to ensure grantee 

access to funding. Internally, HUD has a thorough understanding of the multiple processes 

necessary to make the funds available to grantees and strives to minimize delays. Offices within 

HUD coordinate their reviews and. when possible, perform reviews simultaneously to get money 

to grantees as soon as possible. The ability ofHUD to issue waivers and alternative requirements 

pursuant to the supplemental appropriation language greatly aids BUD in minimizing delays. 
101

Mr. Pastor #4 

Cooperation with Federal Agencies and Local Governments 

Question: How is your department working with other Federal agencies to coordinate 

Federal investments in the disaster area? 

Answer: On December 7, 2012, President Obama issued Executive Order 13632 which 

established the Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force and named Secretary Donovan as the 

chair of the Task Force. The Task Force is charged with the following responsibilities: 

• working closely with FEMA to coordinate rebuilding efforts consistent with the Nation 

Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF); 

• identifying relevant authorities and resources of each federal entity assigned to the Task 

Force; 

• removing obstacles to resilient rebuilding; 

• coordinating with regional entities to ensure access to housing, plan for rebuilding, 

strengthen the economy, understand vulnerabilities and risks from extreme weather 

events and contribute to community and regional resilience; 

• producing Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Strategy for the President; 

• engaging local stakeholders, communities and elected officials to inform the Task Force; 

and 

• communicating with affected Indian Tribes in a manner consistent with Executive Order 

13175. 

Beyond the efforts of the Task Force, HUD has provided staff to the Joint Disaster Recovery 

Field Offices (JFOs) managed under the auspices of FEMA and ha, contributed to expertise to the 

Recovery Support Functions (RSFs) established pursuant to the NDRF. 
102

Mr. Pastor #5 

Cooperation with Federal Agencies and Local Governments 

Question: Given that CDBG grantees have broad discretion over how to use the funds. how 

is HUD coordinating with local governments? 

Answer: Once CDBG-DR allocations arc announced, HUD immediately reaches out to 

those grantees to ensure that they have a point of contact at HUD and understand the basic 

requirements that will govern the funds. HUD provides continual feedback and technical 

assistance to these grantees as they begin to develop their disaster recovery action plans and 

conducts training to ensure that grantees understand the full scope of their responsibilities in 

managing these funds. Where warranted, HUD provides targeted expert technical assistance to aid 

grantees in addressing the most difficult programmatic and policy issues. 
103

Mr. Pastor #6 

Working with Private Entities 

Question: How is your agency working with private entities like businesses, utilities and 

landowners to coordinate investments? 

Answer: The Department works primarily with its CDBG-DR b'fantees, affected state and 

local governments, to ensure that funds are used to respond to post-disa~ter housing, infrastructure 

and economic recovery needs. Under the HUD-issued Federal Register Notices that govern the 

use ofCDBG-DR funds, grantees are required to undertake an impact and unmet needs assessment 

before funds are released. This assessment includes a wide range of information collected from a 

variety of public and private sources. Through this process, HUD expects that grantees will 

understand both short-term needs and long-term investments that will help restore the community 

or region. To be effective, these investments must be made with input from key nongovernmental players. The Department reviews the assessments provided by grantees as part of 

the action plan process to help ensure that post-disaster public investments, such as those 

represented by CDBG-DR, are being made in concert with other stakeholders. CDBG-DR funds 

are designed to address the needs of affected communities and promote recovery in concert with 

private investments. 
104

Mr. Pastor #7 

Working with Private Entities 

Question: When it's clear that an entity will receive a long-term benefit from a recovery 

activity, how do you get them to participate financially? 

Answer: The Department requires grantees to submit disaster recovery action plans which 

outline their disaster recovery needs and articulate how recovery funds are to be deployed to meet 

those needs in three areas of recovery: housing, economic revitalization, and infrastructure. The 

Department requires that action plans demonstrate how other public and private sources of funding 

arc to be leveraged through the proposed recovery programs and activities. In the areas of housing 

and economic revitalization, the Department has sought to encourage direct financial participation 

in recovery from homeowners and businesses, by encouraging them to first seek out loans 

provided by the Small Business Administration prior to accessing CDBG funds. In addition, to 

encourage the use of loans rather than grants to businesses, the Department has waived restrictions 

related to the use of revolving business loan funds. HUD also frequently provides technical 

assistance to disaster grantees on how to bring private entities into partnerships with local 

governments to enhance the effectiveness of grants and to provide real incentive for private 

investment. 
105

Mr. Pastor #8 

Working 'With Private Entities 

Question: Is there a mechanism for private funds to supplement a recovery activity? 

Answer: The Stafford Act duplication of benefit prohibitions help to ensure that private 

funds are directed to recovery efforts and create the expectation that businesses and individuals 

access private insurance to assist in recovery. Beyond this, there are many other sources of private 

funding that come into playas part oflong-term recovery efforts including non-profit and 

philanthropic sources that often address recovery aspects that are not addressed by local, state or 

federal sources. HUD requires grantees to identify in their Action Plans how HUD funds will be 

used to leverage funds from other sources, including private sector resources. For example, the 

City of New York's recently approved Action Plan leverages significant levels of private funds to 

address immediate needs that could not be addressed through local or federal resources. 
106

Mr. Pastor #9 

Allocations and Estimates 

Question: What estimates and methodology did HUD use in making this initial round of 

CDBG-DR allocations? 

Answer: HUD's methodology for allocating the initial $5.4 billion in CDBG-DR funding in 

response to Hurricane Sandy is included as Appendix A to the HUD's Federal Register Notice 

published March 5, 2013 (sec 78 FR 14348 14349 below). Initial allocations were based on a 

formula that took into account observed damage and initial estimates from FEMA as well as data 

from the Small Business Administration and its disaster assistance loan program for housing repair 

and replacement and its loan program for business real property repair. replacement and content 

loss. 

The URL for the notice is https:llfederalregister.gov/a/2013-06170 

Federal Register 

3-05-2013. PDF 
107

Mr. Pastor # 10 

Allocations and Estimates 

Question: What data and methodology will HUD use to allocate the remaining two-thirds of 

the CDBG funds? 

Answer: The Department has not determined the methodology that will be used to allocate 

the remaining $9.286 billion in CDBG-DR funding appropriated by P.L. 113-2. HUD will likely 

rely on existing data sets from FEMA and SBA to inform the allocation process. The initial 

Action Plans submitted by grantees are focused primarily on housing and economic revitalization 

needs, as FEMA and SBA data related to those categories of activity are generally more readily 

available at the outset of disaster recovery. Additional FEMA data related to infrastructure needs 

typically follows later in the disaster recovery process and when available, will be incorporated 

into the Department's methodology for determining future allocations. 
108

Mr. Pastor #11 

Allocations and Estimates 

Question: How much does HUD intend to allocate to 2011 disasters and reserve for 2013 

disasters'? 

Answer: On March 27, 2013, HUD announced $514 million in CDBG-DR funding 

allocations from P.L. 113-2 to qualifYing disasters that occurred in calendar years 2011 and 2012 

(excepting Hurricane Sandy). This allocation is in addition to $400 million in CDBG-DR funding 

for 2011 disasters pursuant to appropriations provided by P.L. 112-55. The Department has not 

made a decision on the amounts offunds to be reserved from P.L. 113-2 for qualifying disasters 

that may occur in calendar year 2013 but will allocate funds consistent with the statutory direction 

that they be directed to "the most impacted and distressed areas" as a result of major disa~ters 

declared under Title IV of the Stafford Act. 
109

Mr. Pastor #12 

Mold and Healthy Homes 

Question: How will HUD ensure that the remediation of mold and other indoor toxins is 

included in local plans? 

Answer: The Department has taken extensive steps to ensure that grantees receiving 

CDBG-DR funds in response to Hurricane Sandy are accounting for costs associated with mold 

remediation and other toxins in their long-term recovery efforts. The Department conducted a 

two- and a half- day training session in March 2013 for these grantees, holds technical assistance 

calls with grantees on a weekly basis and, in some instances, has commissioned on-site technical 

assistance through the OneCPD technical assistance initiative. Throughout these efforts dating 

back to January 2013, HUD has made it clear to grantees that mold remediation is an eligible cost 

as part of a housing rehabilitation activity and such costs should be part of the determination of 

how much CDBG-DR assistance a homeowner or property owner should receive. Further, the 

Federal Register Notice issued by HUD on March 5, 2013, which governs for the CDBG-DR 

funding in response to Hurricane Sandy expressly requires grantees and their recipients to use 

mold-resistant products as part of rehabilitation efforts. Plans submitted by the City of New York, 

the State of New York and the State of New Jersey each directly reference mold remediation as 

part of housing rehabilitation programs and will be part of the process in determining assistance 

levels. 
110

Mr. Pastor #13 

Mold and Healthy Homes 

Question: Will there be a way to track how much of the local funds arc spent on this 

activity? 

Answer: Mold remediation is not, in and of itself, a CDBG-eligible activity as it is 

considered to be a component cost of a housing or commercial rehabilitation activity. As such, 

HUD will be unable to precisely track the amount devoted to remediation purposes but will track 

the amounts used for housing or commercial rehabilitation purposes. 
(111)

THURSDAY, MARCH 21, 2013. 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION 

WITNESS

PETER M. ROGOFF, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay, the hearing will come to order. I apologize 

to the witness for having a little delay with votes this morning, but 

I think we are going to skip our statements here and go right to 

your opening statement, and then to questions if that is okay. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Very good. 

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Administrator, you are recognized for your 

statement.

Mr. ROGOFF. Thank you, Chairman Latham, Ranking Member 

Pastor, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me 

here today to highlight the Federal Transit Administration’s 

progress towards implementing key provisions of MAP–21, which 

made many bold policy changes the administration has fought for. 

These changes come at an especially critical time for public transportation. But for Hurricane Sandy’s impact on transit systems in 

the Northeast in 2012, the United States would have recorded its 

highest annual level of transit ridership since 1957 with 10.5 billion trips taken. We are seeing transit ridership increase across the 

board, whether it is bus, light rail, commuter rail, or bus rapid 

transit. We have transit agencies that are experiencing double-digit 

ridership increases without any expansion in service. 

So despite facing an array of funding challenges, it is vitally important for the FTA to make progress toward implementing MAP– 

21. Nowhere have we made more aggressive progress in implementing MAP–21 than in standing up our new Emergency Relief 

Program. Hurricane Sandy was the worst public transit disaster in 

the history of the United States, affecting more than 40 percent of 

the Nation’s transit ridership at the height of the storm. 

The Obama administration first proposed the establishment of 

an Emergency Relief Program for transit in its FY 2012 budget, 

and fortunately, MAP–21 put that program in place prior to Hurricane Sandy. The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act originally 

granted $10.9 billion to FTA to reimburse transit agencies for response and immediate recovery, and to mitigate the impact of future disasters. That amount was subsequently reduced by $545 

million as a result of the sequester. Still, we are very grateful to 

this committee for providing that level of assistance for our most 

transit-dependent region of the country. 

In just over 6 weeks since President Obama signed the Disaster 

Relief Bill into law, the FTA has responsibly allocated more than 

$500 million to reimburse the hardest hit agencies in New York, 
112

New Jersey, and elsewhere. We are on track to allocate the remainder of the first $2 billion of the disaster aid by the end of March, 

as this committee stipulated in the Disaster Relief Act. 

At the Obama administration’s urging, Congress granted FTA 

historic new authority to provide long overdue Federal safety authority for public transit, and we welcome this responsibility. Our 

goal is to implement a safety management system approach that 

improves safety using commonsense standards that will add value 

without adding a great deal of cost or burdensome regulations. 

We recognize that a one-size-fits-all approach to safety is not the 

best approach for the unique needs of individual transit agencies. 

FTA will set a national framework and then work with each transit 

agency to develop a safety system that targets their greatest safety 

vulnerabilities, and even between like-size systems, those safety 

vulnerabilities may be different. Meanwhile, we have begun to 

work closely with affected Governors, our Transit Rail Safety Committee and other stakeholders to embark on a rulemaking and 

widespread education process. 

Keeping our transit systems safe goes hand in hand with bringing our aging systems into a state of good repair. Following on the 

administration’s budget proposal, MAP–21 established a needsbased formula program for rail, ferries, and busways and initiates 

a new National Transit Asset Management Program that will cover 

all transit systems. 

This program will help the industry tackle deferred rehabilitation, replace outdated transit assets, and support ongoing maintenance efforts that are key to maintaining a transit network that 

continues to provide reliable and desirable service for the American 

public. We see this initiative as central to our ability to make sure 

that the investments that this committee has made in transit in 

the past are well looked after, and that the ridership is getting 

quality service for the investments we made. 

I appreciate this committee’s support for the policy goals in 

MAP–21; however, I want to remind the committee that FTA faces 

several budget challenges that hamper our ability to address all of 

these goals. Overall, the sequester struck $656 million from FTA’s 

budget. It reduced program funding for our Capital Investment 

Grants Program by just less than $100 million. This will mean that 

few, if any, additional New Starts construction projects will be 

fundable in the real future. Even more troubling is the fact that 

ongoing major New Starts and Small Starts projects will experience 

increased borrowing costs as FTA will now be required by sequestration to slow its scheduled grant payments to projects for which 

we have already made written financial agreements. 

Even without the sequester under MAP–21, our capital investment program was authorized to receive 10 percent less in funding 

when compared with amounts available to carry out the projects in 

recent years. These are just some of the significant challenges that 

directly affect our programs and the record number of transit riders we are serving. 
113

FTA will continue to do all we can to make progress to live up 

to the promise of MAP–21 with the resources made available to us. 

Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions you 

have.

[The statement of Mr. Rogoff follows:] 
114

STATEMENT OF 

PETER M. ROGOFF 

ADMINISTRATOR 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT A TION 

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 21, 2013 

Chairman Latham, Ranking Member Pastor, and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today to highlight the Federal Transit 

Administration's (FTA) progress toward implementing key provisions in the Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21 st Century Act, known as MAP-21. This new authorization provides critical 

support to transit systems across the country at a time when national ridership has grown by 154 

million trips in 2012 to 10.5 billion trips-the second highest level since 1957. This was the 

seventh year in a row that ridership exceeded more than 10 billion trips. And this increase 

occurred despite the devastating impact of Hurricane Sandy, which adversely affected roughly 

40 percent of the nation's transit ridership at the height of the storm. 

MAP-21 will help strengthen the nation's public transportation infrastructure and provide transit 

services people demand. The two-year authorization, providing $10.6 billion in FY 2013 and 

$10.7 billion in FY 2014 for public transportation, codifies some of the Administration's highcst 

priorities for cnhancing the satety of public transportation, strengthening our nation's 

transportation infrastructure, and streamlining government to serve taxpayers' needs more 

efficiently. 

In the eight months since MAP-21 was signed into law, FTA has started implementing key 

provisions, setting up new programs, and providing guidance and training to states, metropolitan 

planning organizations, and transit agencies. We have an active and engaged legislative 

implementation team and an agb'I'Cssive timetable in place. Because MAP-21 closely reflects 

some key program and policy priorities well under way at FTA prior to its passage, our agency 

has been able to move ahead quickly in two important areas. 

First, FT A published in January 2013 a final rule for Major Capital Investment Projects-years 

in the making-that adopts a more straightforward approach for measuring a proposed transit 

project's cost-effectiveness; expands the range of environmental benefits used to evaluate 

proposed projects; adds new economic development factors to its ratings process; and 

streamlines the project evaluation process. The revised ratings and evaluation criteria will better 

capture the full range of benefits that FTA' s transit investments provide through the New 

Starts/Small Starts program, while continuing an appropriate level of oversight of taxpayer 

1 
115

dollars. These revisions align with major purposes ofMAP-21, including improving the 

development and delivery of capital projects and moving us toward a more perfonnance-driven 

system. We appreciate the Committee's support for this important achievement. 

Second, FTA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) jointly published in February 

2013 an important final rule to streamline the environmental review process under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for proposed transit projects seeking Federal funds. The rule 

establishes 10 new categorical exclusions (CEs) defined specifically for transit projects. CEs 

significantly expedite FT A's environmental review of projects that have been shown to have 

little environmental impact while preserving critical community input on how planned transit 

projects affect the local environment. These NEPA revisions, like the New Starts changes, are 

closely aligned with the policy goals of MAP-21. 

In addition to these significant rulemakings, FT A is making progress to implement MAP-21 on 

several fronts. For example, at the outset ofFY 2013, FTA published interim guidance on all of 

our MAP-21 programs as part of our annual funding notice for the first half of the year under 

the continuing resolution. This guidance helped FTA grantees get a jump on submitting their 

FY 2013 funding applications and laid the groundwork for future-year grants. FTA is making 

good progress on developing more detailed guidance on which we will seek public comment in 

the near future. 

Despite these early achievements, we recognize that much work and many challenges lie ahead. 

Our ability to fully implement MAP-21 is significantly hampered by the funding constraints 

imposed by the current fiscal year continuing resolution as well as budget cuts imposed by the 

Budget Control Act of 20 II. Nearly $5 million in cuts to our administrative budget will 

undoubtedly delay some aspects ofMAP-21 implementation and reduce our ability to respond 

to our stakeholders' needs. Every budget request under this Administration has sought 

additional funding to allow for additional staffing at the FT A to better addres,"Our core 

responsibilities as well as our new safety responsibilities. Moreover, reductions in FT A's 

capital investment program funding will mean few, if any, additional New Starts construction 

projects will be fundable in the near tenn. Also, sponsors of ongoing major capital projects 

may experience increased borrowing costs as FTA may be required by sequestration to amend 

its pay-out schedule on projects to which it has already made financing commitments. 

Nevertheless, FTA is committed to moving forward as quickly as possible to implement MAP21 so that the American people may reap the benefits that come with investing in public 

transportation that improves transportation equity, provides access to jobs and services, reduces 

congestion, and stimulates our economic development in cities and communities throughout the 

nation. 

Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program 

As Deputy Transportation Secretary Porcari testified before this Committee last Friday, nowhere 

has FTA made more aggressive progress in implementing the provisions of MAP-21 than in the 

area of emergency relief. The President's Budget first proposed in FY 2012 a new emergency 

relief program for the FTA to parallel a similar capability in the Federal Highway 

Administration. The President proposed this program to strengthen the agency's authority to 

provid.e disaster assistance to transit agencies in the wake of major natural disasters and other 

emergencies, and the program was authorized by Congress in MAP-21. 

2 
116

The authorization of this new program arrived just in time for Hurricane Sandy; the worst natural 

disaster in the history of public transit in the United States. Hurricane Sandy devastated 

transportation systems in the hardest-hit parts of New York and New Jersey-which together 

represent more than one-third of our nation's transit ridership--and triggered a very rapid 

implementation path for the program. The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 20 13 (Pub. L. 

113-2) appropriated $10.9 billion to FTA to help transit agencies repair and replace damaged 

vehicles and equipment affected by this storm, as well as to undertake work to mitigate the 

impact of future floods and other disasters on transportation assets and systems. 

Unfortunately, the balance of funds appropriated by Congress has been reduced by $545 million 

as part of sequestration. The reduction will affect DOT's ability to help strengthen and protect 

transportation systems, including transit agencies, from future storms and natural disasters. 

Nevertheless, in just over seven weeks since President Obama signed the disaster relief bill into 

law, the FT A has responsibly allocated more than half a billion dollars to reimburse transit 

agencies for heroic efforts to protect people and equipment before, during, and after Hurricane 

Sandy. With millions of commuters using these systems each day and transit ridership 

approaching record highs across the nation, these funds will ensure that these systems are fully 

restored and needed services continue to be provided. These funds have provided much-needed 

assistance to the largest affected agencies, including the New York Metropolitan Transit 

Authority, the Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., and New Jersey Transit, as well as smaller 

agencies that can ill afford unanticipated emergency expenditures, such as the Milford Transit 

District in Connecticut. 

By the end of March, 2013, FTA intends to allocate the remainder of the initial $2 billion to 

impacted agencies that submit applications for assistance. The release of the remaining funds 

authorized in the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act is contingent on two activities. First, FT A 

and FEMA have signed a Memorandum of Agreement, as also required by MAP-21, which 

clarifies coordination of roles and responsibilities of both agencies to ensure that assistance is 

delivered in a timely, responsible, and transparent manner. Second, FTA must publish an interim 

final rule for the new Emergency Relief Program, laying out eligible activities and the criteria 

FT A will use to identify projects for future funding. The interim final rule is under review 

within the Administration and will become effective immediately, once it is finalized. 

Safety Authority 

MAP-21 gives FTA long-sought authority to establish safety performance criteria for all modes 

of public transportation and establish minimum safety performance standards for public 

transportation. In addition, MAP-21 significantly strengthens FTA's ability to oversee and 

enforce common-sense safety standards for rail fixed-guideway transit systems. The 

Administration first transmitted transit safety legislation to the Congress in December 2009 and 

many of the provisions sought in the Administration's bill were included in MAP-21. At the 

time the Administration's bill was transmitted to Congress, Secretary LaHood also formally 

established the Department of Transportation's Transit Rail Advisory Committee on Safety 

(TRACS). 

While Congress has yet to appropriate additional administrative funds to carry out this new 

area of responsibility, FT A has moved forward as expeditiously as possible using already 

3 
117

strained existing resources. We are dcveloping a roadmap for a comprehensive MAP-21 safety 

roll-out plan that is sensitive to stakeholder's concerns about this new oversight initiative. FTA 

will build a 21 5t century regulatory program over a period of several years. 

In the short term, FT A has tasked TRACS to provide strategic guidance on the forthcoming 

rulemaking framework. FT A has also articulated a strategic framework for safety oversight, 

predicated on a safety management systems approach that takes into account the differing 

characteristics among rail systems and operators. We will pursue an approach that is scalablenot a one-size-fits-all model. Our initial focus in the first few years is on establishing a safety 

oversight regime that is expressed through Federal rulemakings, and complemented by 

development assistance packages for state safety oversight organizations (SSOA) and agencies. 

We will administer grants to assist agencies in becoming eligible for state certification and 

devise strong safety training programs. 

With respect to strengthening and adequately funding the SSOAs-a key provision of section 

5329 under MAP-21-FTA has issued clear instructions to the governors in each of the 28 

states that operate a rai I fixed-guideway transit system (or where such a system is in 

engineering or construction) that is not already subject to regulation by the Federal Railroad 

Administration. Specifically, in August 2012, Secretary LaHood first informed every aflected 

governor by letter that financial arrangements must be made to secure the matching funds 

necessary for receipt of FT A's state safety oversight funds. Under MAP-21, a percentage of the 

section 5307 Urbanized Area formula funds are set aside to assist eligible states with their state 

safety oversight programs. MAP-21 also requires a 20 percent state match to help cover 

reasonable costs of a state safety oversight program. FT A is currently developing a formula to 

make those funds available to eligible states. Every eligible state will be expected to use 

program funds to strengthen their SSOA and to position them to comply with the requirements 

ofMAP-21. 

Going forward, FT A will act as the leader, facilitator, and tinal regulatory authority setting 

minimum safety standards, and be held fundamentally accountable for the overall safety 

performance of the nation's fixed-guideway rail transit systems. To achieve these goals, FTA 

will concentrate on strengthening the capacity of SSOAs to serve as effective day-to-day safety 

regulators capable of holding these locally governed transit systems accountable tor safe 

operations by ensuring they comply with minimum common-sense safety standards. 

Additionally, FTA will work to adapt its comprehensive safety approach to all modes of public 

transportation within its safety authority. Specifically, we will work to ensure that the bus 

segment of public transportation, upon which millions of riders depend every day, receives the 

resources. tools and technical assistance it too will need to ensure the safety of the riding public. 

However, we must sound an important note of caution. Regrettably. the Continuing Resolution 

introduced by both the House and Senate gives FT A resources that are well below those sought 

by the Administration to carry out the safety provisions in MAP-21 that are at the heart of our 

effort to greatly improve an oversight regime that has been inadequate for half a century. This 

allows the current inefficient safety oversight mechanisms to remain in place longer than they 

otherwise would. 

4 
118

State of Good Repair and Transit Asset Management 

Since 2008, FTA has staked out a leadership role in highlighting the critical need to bring the 

nation's aging transit assets into a state of good repair, especially in large urban areas-and to 

hold transit agencies accountable for implementing a more strategic approach to managing the 

lifecycle of their assets. The momentum we initiated is real, but the gains that will truly benefit 

the American people require sustained investment. FTA obligated $1.9 billion--about one-fitlh 

of our share of funds under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 for this very 

purpose, along with more than $2.2 billion in discretionary dollars over the last four years. 

Indeed, the Administration has made increased funding for a new State of Good Repair program 

the centerpiece of its annual budget requests for the FT A. Congress incorporated elements of our 

proposal on this essential area into MAP-21 by creating a more needs-based state-of-good-repair 

formula program. 

FTA recognizes that this problem cannot be solved by Federal action alone and requires a 

concerted effort by Federal, state, and local resources in a coordinated, strategic manner. That is 

why FTA is establishing a national Transit Asset Management System. The new section 5326 

Transit Asset Management program established under MAP-21 is vitally important to carrying 

out these infrastructure investments effectively and responsibly. This innovative program 

requires all FT A funding recipients to adopt a structured approach for managing their capital 

assets and be accountable for leveraging all available resources to bring their systems into a state 

of good repair through reinvestment and replacement. Earlier this year, FT A sponsored a 

successful public dialogue with over 700 stakeholders to obtain critical input on how we 

implement these new requirements. And FTA will shortly solicit public comments through the 

Federal Register on ways to report asset inventories and asset conditions to FTA's National 

Transit Database-an important first step toward refining estimates of the nation's transit-related 

state-of-good-repair backlog. This is a very important initiative that will help FT A and 

Congress better understand how Federal dollars are being effectively targeted on each transit 

agency's greatest needs. It will also assist us in ensuring that Federal investments are being well 

managed and well utilized. 

As part of our ongoing broader effort in this area, we are also developing interim policy guidance 

to establish the agency's first formal definition of "state of good repair," which will be important 

for setting funding criteria in the future. The new definition will also have a direct bearing on the 

implementation of two cross-cutting FT A programs under MAP-21 - the Core Capacity 

Improvement Program (which excludes state of good repair projects from eligibility) and the 

Pilot Program on Expedited Project Delivery (which requires grant applicants to certify that their 

existing systems are in a state of good repair). 

Accelerated Project Delivery 

Improving the development and delivery of capital transportation projects is a primary policy 

goal of the Administration. MAP-21 incorporates this effort to streamline and expedite 

infrastructure projects of regional and national significance. As cited above, FT A has already 

issued two significant rulemakings that streamline and in some cases accelerate the New Starts 

program and the NEP A process. 

5 
119

In addition, FTA and FHW A have jointly issued two other actions in February to improve 

project delivery. First, the two agencies jointly issued a regulation creating a categorical 

exclusion (CE) under NEPA for emergency actions pursuant to Section 1315 ofMAP-21. This 

CE applies to all transit facilities and covers emcrgency repairs undertaken as part of FT A's 

Emergency Relief Program. And second. they jointly issued a notice of proposed rulemaking 

for CEs for projects within a rail transit system's operational right-of-way and projects 

receiving limited Federal assistance. These types of actions effectively cut red tape for funding 

recipients, reduce the administrative burden on state and local governments, and expedite 

results for the American public. 

Public-Private Partnerships 

FTA also recognizes the value of public-private partnerships as a means of augmenting public 

investments in infrastructure. On March 7, 2013, FTA published for public comment a 

proposed circular on Joint Development that clearly explains how FTA funds and FTA-funded 

real property may be used for public transportation projects that are related to and often colocated with commercial, residential, or mixed-use development. The circular emphasizes thc 

concept of "value capture," which encourages FTA grantees to leverage Federal investments to 

capture revenue (such as the sale of publicly held land near transit facilities) that can in tum be 

used to offset capital and operating expenses. 

Conclusion 

MAP-21 offers an important opportunity to recalibrate the way our government evaluates and 

invests in our federally funded public transportation infrastructure. From a transit perspective, 

the law's major provisions enable FT A to focus our resources on strategic investments that will 

result in a better riding experience for millions of Americans. while repairing and modernizing 

transit systems for generations to come. 

This opportunity could not come at a more critical time for our nation. A major paradigm shift is 

under way in this country that has a profound impact on how people get from place to placeand how they're able to move around. We learned in the last Census, for instance, that our 

population as a nation is going to grow by 100 million people by 2050, and that population 

growth is not going to be spread evenly across the country, but will be concentrated in many of 

the areas where populations are concentrating now, especially our metropolitan areas. Moreover, 

a smaller percentage of the population by that point will be working, as the Baby Boom 

generation ages. At the same time, fewer young adults are driving-many prefer to take transit. 

These trends, combined with climbing rates of ridership, strongly indicate that the ability of the 

United States to compete and grow its economy depends, in large measure, on the health of our 

public infrastructure, including thc transit rail and bus systems millions depend on every day to 

access jobs and contribute to their communities as productive citizens. 

We can either plan for this growth now by making the necessary investments to accommodate 

the population increase, or we can be overwhelmed by it. This Administration has proposed 

budgets year after year that would help plan for that growth. 

Thank you and I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

6 
120

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you very much. MAP–21 made a number of 

changes in the bus formula program. Some call it streamlining, but 

it really is a massive shift of national funds to the large rail systems, leaving just pennies for bus-only systems. Iowa has one of 

the oldest operating fleets in the country. Our state of good repair 

needs are great. Over 54 percent of Iowa buses are operating beyond their useful life, and yet the return on our contributions to 

the trust fund is minimal. 

Under SAFETEA–LU, Iowa could replace about 41 buses a year. 

Under MAP–21, it will only replace about 22 in the first year. That 

is almost a 50 percent decrease. 

Can you explain what happened to the formula in MAP–21 shorting the bus-only transit systems like we have in Iowa? How would 

you propose to make it more equitable for the allocation of funds 

under the formula? Specifically, how would you address state of 

good repair in a state like Iowa? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I can, Mr. Chairman, and I have heard this concern 

from a number of regions around the country. Just to provide a 

very brief bit of history, the administration did propose that the 

Bus Discretionary Program that was available for years under 

SAFETEA–LU and prior authorization acts be folded into a formula program for state of good repair. However, the administration’s proposal proposed that new State of Good Repair Program be 

available for the bus-only operators, and it also proposed sizeable 

funding increases for the program. 

So when I went around the country advocating that this policy 

change take place, I also assured the bus-only operators in multiple 

public statements that they would certainly get no less than they 

were getting before. 

MAP–21 went a different way. The Congress took some of that 

money for the bus discretionary program, put it in the State of 

Good Repair Formula program, limited that State of Good Repair 

program only to what we called ‘‘fixed guideway’’ operations, mostly 

rail, and then used a smaller amount of money, really less than 

half, for the bus-only operators. 

So there is no question that they took a hit here. And I think 

it is something that needs to be revisited in—I don’t know if you 

call it MAP–22, but whatever the next reauthorization is. When we 

proposed this policy, the dollar level for the program was more 

than $1 billion more than what MAP–21 provided, and that would 

have provided plenty of money for the bus-only operators and others, but MAP–21 went a different direction. 

Mr. LATHAM. The administration submitted a proposal. 

Mr. ROGOFF. The administration submitted a budget. 

Mr. LATHAM. The reality is that for the first time since Eisenhower, an administration has not had a proposal. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, I will put it this way: The administration, 

through its budget proposals, showed what programs that we 

would consolidate and I did testify before the Senate Authorizing 

Committee on this specific proposal. However, no, we did not formally submit a legislative message on that. 

Mr. LATHAM. There is not one. 

Mr. ROGOFF. There was not one, no, sir. 
121

Mr. LATHAM. It has come to my attention that the Department 

asked for and got a provision added to MAP–21 that transit systems serving areas of 50,000 to 200,000 population will no longer 

be designated a designated recipient of the FTA funds. What was 

the reason for the change in status, and can you tell me if the FTA 

consulted any of those affected communities before insisting on 

that provision? Is there any thought of the impact on those communities?

Mr. ROGOFF. In your last question you pointed out that we did 

not have a proposal, so I don’t think that we could have proposed 

this either. But I think more importantly, we sought clarity in who 

the designated recipient would be. We did, obviously, and we do 

have regular consultations with communities. I think this has 

worked better in some communities, than others. We are currently 

working, if you will, on a one-by-one basis to make sure that it is 

understood who the designated recipients are, and that local decisionmaking is determining how funds are suballocated. 

Mr. LATHAM. You still have all of the regulations in effect for 

those communities, but they are not getting any funding? How do 

you keep the regulations in place? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, if I follow you correctly, they are certainly getting funding through the suballocation from the designated recipient. It is not like they were cut off from Federal funds. It is really 

the process of who is doing the local decisionmaking as to how 

funds are allocated. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. PASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome. 

Last week we had GAO and the Inspector General from the Department of Transportation, and we talked specifically about some 

of the programs within the agencies, but one of the things that I 

talked about with them in terms of the hearing was the capacity 

of the agencies to be able to collect data, evaluate the data, and 

then use the information available so that you could have better 

practices and find out what is happening. 

You now have a new assignment through MAP–21, and less, at 

least administrative moneys, I don’t think are there, and with sequestration added to that, and so as you collect, how do you see 

your IT in terms of collecting the data from the local agencies, 

bringing them up and evaluating them, and then using them as 

management tools to continue either supporting, or you know, 

changing things as things are not working out? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I would say Mr. Pastor, we do robust data collection, but the methodologies we use and the questions we are asking 

I think need to be reformed and updated. Every transit agency that 

receives Federal funds is required to submit data to the National 

Transit Database. Some of that data is used to run our formula 

programs, using data including ridership, miles that they operate, 

et cetera. 

The new safety responsibility brings a considerable new data-collection effort, but it is not really just on FTA’s part. You heard me 

say in my opening statement that we are really committed to trying to do this new safety responsibility in a way that adds value, 

but does not add a lot of cost and a lot of burden. One of the ways 

individual transit agencies do that is by establishing a safety man-
122

agement system where they have to collect data on their own operations, and use that data to identify their greatest safety vulnerability. And for one agency it may be the skills of their operators, 

and how many minor accidents are happening that should not have 

happened with appropriate training. For another agency it may be 

the condition of their equipment. And they will get that information through data collection. 

So we are looking for ways to expand this for the purpose of safety, and to do it in a cost-effective manner. As someone who finances 

a large portion of the transit agency’s expenses, in these times it 

is not in my interest to issue huge burdensome new requirements, 

but it is actually through the data collection that transit agencies 

can do this much more efficiently and much less expensively than 

hard and fast regulatory one-size-fits-all rules that some other 

DOT agencies have done in the past. 

Mr. PASTOR. The other point that kind of stuck out with me was 

that just the equipment that is available to your people, or in—I 

don’t know about FTA in particular, but it seems that at least 

through the whole agency, that the equipment itself was greatly 

outdated and needed to be modernized. Do you have that same 

problem in your agency? 

Mr. ROGOFF. We do. There is no question that no one would 

argue that DOT is on the cutting edge of IT. So let me give you 

an example, and it is a very big game changer for us. We are working on, we have a computer interface with every transit agency, 

and the way we cut grants is through our so-called ‘‘TEAM’’ System. That system is very old, very user unfriendly. My 15-year-old 

would laugh at it if I showed him what one has to go through to 

communicate between the FTA and its grantees. 

We are, even with scarce funds, developing a new open-architecture system. We are years behind in getting it launched, but we 

hope to get it into play in the next couple of years. 

Mr. PASTOR. The question that I have, your Capital Investment Grant reduced by $100 million? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PASTOR. And we were out there with the City of Mesa as 

they were cutting ribbons for the expansion of the Metro 3 miles 

further east, but what is going to happen to that particular segment of the extension, of the transit extension as an example how 

sequestration is going to slow things down or require a new way 

of thinking in terms of funding and getting things done? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, as I mentioned in my opening statement, the 

combination of the CR with sequestration means that for the first 

time in a very long time the agency will have less money than we 

need to fully accommodate the amount that would be required to 

fulfill all of the funding commitments made for 2013 in each of the 

full-funding grant agreements that we have signed. 

We have not made any decisions yet in terms of how we will 

apply that against individual grants, but it is going to slow our 

progress on the entire New Starts program until we can get a funding level consistent with the signed commitments, of which Mesa 

is one. 

Mr. PASTOR. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Pastor. 
123

Mr. Dent. 

Mr. DENT. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. MAP–21 increased funding for the TIFIA program from $122 mil- lion to $1 billion a year. This funding increase plus a change in the 

law allows project costs under TIFIA loans to increase, I think, 

from 33 to 49 percent. Have these changes been effective in tracking more loan applications in State and local governments and public-private partnerships? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, I cannot speak to the impact of that particular 

policy change. Obviously, TIFIA is one program where there has 

been extraordinary growth in interest. Prior to being nominated for 

this position, sir—I worked on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, and there was a time when we were 

actually rescinding TIFIA funds from lack of interest and lack of 

use.

That has completely turned itself around, especially as the financial markets have changed and the demand for TIFIA is now far 

exceeding even the increased numbers authorized under MAP–21. 

TIFIA is doing great work, not just obviously for transit projects, 

but also for highway and other projects, port projects, where the 

credit subsidy is having a real impact on people gaining access to 

private capital at very affordable terms. So yes, DOT has a considerable demand and MAP–21 did do us well by providing considerable additional authority. 

Mr. DENT. And as you are aware, too, MAP–21 streamlines some 

of the project development processes that were established limits 

on environmental reviews and consolidated steps that FTA has got 

to take in the project process. What are the impacts of these 

changes having in practical terms for the FTA and the grantees? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, they are very positive in that we just recently—jointly with the Federal Highway Administration—came 

out with a rulemaking to expand the number of categorical exclusions. You know, a great many, almost all transit projects are inherently environmentally beneficial, so it has always been a frustration if they have to go through a very painfully long environment approval process. So this mad effort enables us to get projects 

through the pipeline more quickly, and it enables the taxpayers 

and the transit riders to get the benefits of the improvements more 

quickly.

Mr. DENT. Yeah, and another issue with respect to MAP–21 and 

that new formula grant program for buses, it is really going to bus 

rapid transit, what I have seen in my reviews of this infrastructure 

development is that BRT systems seem to have a forward leaning, 

or forward leaning alternative to light rail in terms of flexibility 

and economic feasibility, especially. This concept of BRT, as you 

are probably aware, is getting a lot of attraction in other countries. 

How does BRT fit in FTA’s vision for modernizing, expanding, improving transit options in our communities? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, we are an advocate for BRT in certain corridors where it makes sense. You know, in certain corridors based 

on the density or other factors, only rail is going to make sense. 

But BRT, if you can give it a designated lane, if it does not have 

to co-mingle with other traffic, it can move an extraordinary number of passengers at a very affordable cost. There are other tools 
124

that BRT can use like signal priority where every time a bus approaches a traffic light it is always green. If you are selling the fare 

media to passengers not as they board the bus, but before they 

board the bus, you can move a lot of people very efficiently. 

It works in some corridors, not others, but we are funding, especially through our Small Starts program, a number of very successful BRT projects. 

Mr. DENT. And on the issue of Sandy, which established a new 

Emergency Relief Program within FTA, FTA’s new Emergency Relief Program was authorized under MAP–21 and it appears that 

the Sandy funds were used, Sandy funds were the first infusion of 

funds, I think, used for that program. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Correct. 

Mr. DENT. What is the process for deciding which applications receive funding? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, consistent with the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, those dollars are limited just to those impacted by Hurricane Sandy. At present we are taking applications. We just did our 

first tranche of allocations for response and recovery. In the next 

few months, we will be coming out with guidance on how we will 

handle applications for mitigation, an important investment that 

this committee made in seeing to it that there not be a recurrence 

of these disasters in terms of their impact on transit agencies. 

Mr. DENT. Are you getting requests in a complete package, or on 

a piecemeal basis? 

Mr. ROGOFF. We have invited the applications on a rolling basis. 

We did one solicitation for the first tranche of money. We established a deadline of March 8. Consistent with the direction that 

was in your appropriations act, we will at the end of the month allocate the first $2 billion. At that point, the window will be open 

for people to come to us with eligible response and recovery costs 

as they are ready to come to us. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Dent. 

Mr. Price. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Greetings, Administrator, 

glad to have you here. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Good to see you. 

Mr. PRICE. I want to commend you. I don’t remember an Administrator of your agency that has had a more hands-on approach 

than you have had. It seems to me that your experience as a staffer 

in this institution has served you well. You are hands on, you do 

master details, and you are a good communicator. You have paid 

attention to Members’ needs to understand the program, understand the process, and you have communicated well with the local 

communities who are involved in that, so I commend you for that. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Thank you. 

Mr. PRICE. I think you have opened up this agency in a very 

positive way, and I think you have modified the processes in positive ways as well, administrative means, and also from the MAP– 

21 legislation. You have reformed the evaluation criteria. You have 

streamlined the process for New Starts. Cost-effectiveness is still a 

criteria, but the administration has begun to evaluate projects in 

a more robust manner, land use, increased mobility, economic de-
125

velopment, and we have been looking for that for a long time. So 

I commend you for that as well. 

I wonder also, I will ask you three questions in rapid succession 

here. I wonder if you have also thought about what the Federal 

share might be? I know it is already down to 50 percent from 60, 

but are there variable kind of Federal shares that could be significant enough to get a new project off the ground and would help you 

stretch the funding and add yet more flexibility to the program? 

I think a lot of communities would settle for a lesser Federal 

share in exchange for more rapid approval, and more flexible criteria.

Secondly, I wonder right now what the balance looks like, and 

what kind of balance you are trying to maintain between the expansion projects, and the new New Starts. There are a lot of promising expansion projects around the country, I know that. They 

meet the needs of our Nation’s largest metropolitan areas, but of 

course, there are a lot of communities wanting to get going with 

transit systems. And I wonder what kind of balance you are aiming 

for there, and what you have been able to maintain. 

And then finally, of course, we are concerned about the effect of 

sequestration, and the current budget situation more broadly on all 

of this. 

In your testimony, you noted that sequester would take $100 million from New Starts. You expressed concern about your ability to 

fund projects in the pipeline. I assume that means the payment 

schedule for New Starts that already have a full funding grant 

agreement. I wonder what it might also mean for putting projects 

in the pipeline, putting new projects in the queue, so to speak. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, let me take each of those in order. As far as 

variable Federal shares, this is something that we have talked 

about. This committee has been very clear through its direction 

that we should not consider or bring forward New Starts with a 

Federal share more than 50 percent. I have been concerned at 

times, especially during the recession, that communities would 

struggle because of the downturn in sales tax revenue to be able 

to leverage that 50 percent. Yet they are communities very much 

in need of a transit improvement. I worry a little bit about New 

Starts becoming a program of ‘‘haves’’ and ‘‘have nots.’’ Especially 

when you consider a city like Detroit, which ranks 109th in its 

available transit service, but probably 9th in terms of the demand 

for transit services. It is very hard to get there because of their 

local financial circumstances. We have been working on ways and 

fortunately there is a private investment that will serve as the 

local match for some of their BRT improvements, but that arrangement required special legislation. 

You asked about expansion versus new New Starts. I have to 

admit, we have not really come at it from that perspective. We 

have considered the projects as they have been brought to us by 

local sponsors. Some of those are cities brand-new to the New 

Starts program. Others are expanding. Some of those expansions in 

busier cities will generate more ridership than some of the new 

ones, and the law we have does not make a distinction between 

how we approach them. We have been trying to advance the local 

vision really of everybody that applies to the program. 
126

On the impact of sequester it is notable. The result of sequester 

in combination with the CR means that the final number for New 

Starts this year will be some $400 million less than what the President proposed. Now, the President proposed those increases not 

just because we are supportive of these projects. We also requested 

the increase in this program to accommodate the pipeline that we 

knew was growing. 

So we are now in a situation where we will not have enough 

funds, at least this year, to fully fund all of the collective agreements that we have signed. We hope that that will change next 

year. We always, when there is a decrement to an individual 

project, we add it on at the end, so someone whose payment schedule may end in 2017, the amount that they may not get in 2013, 

we would customarily add on in 2017, and that has been the precedent of the agency for several years. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Price. 

Ms. Herrera Beutler. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you so much for being here. I have a few questions, and some of 

it is going to kind of follow-up on what you were just talking about. 

I am going to try and—I want to put all of these questions out 

there, because I would like answers to all of them, but forgive me 

for a moment if I give you a little bit of a list and then perhaps 

we could discuss it. Your testimony mentions streamlining efforts 

to the New Starts program which was, as mentioned, reauthorized 

in MAP–21. These streamlining efforts do not include changes to 

project qualification or requirements, do they? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, those are pretty broad terms. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. The requirements for the grants. I mean, 

specific requirements. It does not propose changing or altering the 

requirements that you are supposed to follow to make a grant, 

right?

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, it does propose changes to the process we 

hope to streamline, so let me give you an example if I could. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Yeah. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Earlier under SAFETEA–LU, there were two separate processes at the beginning. You had to do a separate alternatives analysis to qualify for the FTA, and yet a different alternatives analysis, similar, but slightly different, to get through the 

environmental process through NEPA. We eliminated the separate 

FTA process because we thought there was—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Redundancy. 

Mr. ROGOFF. It was redundant and we were able to work with 

the NEPA alternatives analysis and move forward. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Okay. 

Mr. ROGOFF. And that just saves people money and saves people 

time.

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. New Starts that required, and I think 

you were talking, you mentioned at 50 percent. New Starts requires a local match, a stable and reliable capital financing plan, 

and the sponsoring agent to display the ability to fund the O&M 

before the grant is approved, correct? 

Mr. ROGOFF. That is correct. 
127

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. New Starts program is designed only to 

pay for a portion of the initial cost of building a transit project. So 

is it safe to say that once a project is, and this is where I would 

like your clarification, that once a project is complete, the Federal 

Government will pay, or will not pay, or will not have a financial 

role in going forward. To be more specific, if the cost estimates of 

an operations and maintenance are incorrect, heaven forbid, and 

the real costs are higher to the local communities, they are the 

ones on the hook for the excess, right? They cannot come back to 

the Feds? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, not for operations. And for capital funding, we 

normally, when we sign a full funding grant agreement, the Federal contribution is capped. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Okay. 

Mr. ROGOFF. And if there are cost overruns, we do not provide 

additional Federal funds for them. I think it is noteworthy, however, that we have gotten a lot better as an agency at cost estimation——

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. On the capital piece. 

Mr. ROGOFF [continuing]. And evaluating risk. Well, also on the 

operating piece. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Okay. 

Mr. ROGOFF. But we don’t fund grants for the operations of a 

New Start project. That is generally derived from State and local 

sources. Sometimes operations come in higher, sometimes they 

come in lower, sometimes agencies choose to actually increase the 

frequency of service. So there are a number of cities, light rail in 

Charlotte, in Mr. Pastor’s backyard into Phoenix, where ridership 

has far exceeded on light rail what was initially expected. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Well, and I think, and just so I can get 

the rest of these in here. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I am sorry. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. That is the goal, right? That is a good 

scenario.

Mr. ROGOFF. It is a good scenario. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Back to the local match. What is the 

maximum percentage amount New Starts can fund transit 

projects? If the transit project is part of a larger capital construction project, like light rail on a six-lane bridge. Are New Starts eligible to pay for the non-transit portion of that project? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, since we are going to speak specifically of 

light rail on a six-lane bridge that I think we are both familiar 

with, you need to recollect that there is special legislation that was 

enacted for that project that said the State contributions to the 

highway portion would count as the match for the transit portion. 

So in the case of that unnamed project, sometimes referred to as 

the Columbia River Crossing, this language enables us to provide 

$850 million for that project which was more than—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So wait. Let me ask this in a different 

way.

Mr. ROGOFF. Sure. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So the New Starts, so there was special 

legislation that allowed the New Starts grant—— 

Mr. ROGOFF. There was. 
128

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER [continuing]. To provide more than the 50 

percent match? 

Mr. ROGOFF. The way it was structured was to basically recognize that this is a unique project. It is not just a transit improvement. It is obviously a $2.5 billion highway bridge as well for one 

of the most congested highway bridges we have got. And the way 

that legislation was structured allows basically the contributions of 

the States toward the highway portion to count as the local match 

for the transit portion. There are similar things—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Wait a minute. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I am sorry. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. But does that mean that the New Starts 

program is giving more than 50 percent? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Of the transit costs? 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Of the transit costs. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes, it would be. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. And we allowed that in special legislation?

Mr. ROGOFF. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Because that seems contradictory to the 

way that New Starts grants are. 

Mr. ROGOFF. These special provisions were not unheard of in 

years past. There were several done, whether they were for New 

Jersey, or Utah, or other places. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Okay. I think that is all for this round. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Ryan. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and I had a 

chance to look through your testimony, and I appreciate what you 

have been able to do the last couple of years. I know it has been 

an up and down, I guess would be a good way to put it. 

One of the issues that I want to ask you about is the alternative 

fuel vehicles, and some of the research that is going on there coming through MAP–21. The Clean Fuel Bus Grant Program was 

eliminated and a competitive deployment program was created to 

advance low or no emissions vehicles and facilities, and the research program was authorized at $70 million. But under the CR 

and sequestration, it is going to go down to about $42 million. And 

coming from an older industrial area in Ohio, Youngstown, Akron, 

I think part of creating an overall economic renaissance to try to 

bring young people back, these are the kind of things that we need 

to be looking into. 

So what will you not be able to do? What activities are you going 

to have to pare back because of the sequestration and some of the 

cuts, and if you could just let us know what some of the benefits 

have been from the research that has gone on. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, the FTA has over decades, really, played a 

leadership role in advancing the state of the art on clean fuel 

buses. We now have in commercially available form zero emission 

buses. One manufacturer in particular, who really started as a 

grantee just at the very birthing of the clean fuel zero emission bus 

program, and now those are being sold in increasing numbers 

across the country. 
129

You are correct. We do have a new research program under 

MAP–21. The funding was reduced. It is going to slow our progress 

to try and get the next generation on the ground. We are still going 

to implement the program with whatever resources we have, but 

in terms of the number of participants that we can accommodate, 

and how quickly we can advance the science, is going to be hampered.

Mr. RYAN. Thank you. So this is a public-private endeavor? 

Mr. ROGOFF. It is a public-private endeavor because we obviously 

are not going to develop the ‘‘Federal bus.’’ I hope we never do. It 

is really about trying to provide some seed capital for innovative 

science-oriented developers to get a commercially viable bus. So 

there are really two challenges. One is the science, and then when 

we have that commercially viable bus, how do we get the price 

down such that it is really competitive? 

A lot of bus agencies now are buying hybrid-electric buses. The 

cost penalty to buy a hybrid-electric used to be, you really had to 

be sort of cutting edge to decide that you were going to go that 

route because they did not provide a pay back. Now, the fuel savings on purchasing a hybrid-electric bus pays itself back and if you 

can put up the capital up front, it is in your financial interest to 

buy it. 

Mr. RYAN. And how long will it take to pay off and get your 

money back? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Depending on how intensely the bus is used, somewhere between 8- and the usual 12-year service life, but you should 

certainly make the money back by the end, the end being 12 years. 

Now, you have got situations like Mr. Latham’s where you have 

a great many bus operators that are operating buses beyond their 

useful life. In that particular case, the gas savings, assuming that 

the equipment can be kept up, will pay itself back year after year. 

You will have long since gotten your return on investment. 

Mr. RYAN. I just think there is a lot of opportunity here 

given——

Mr. ROGOFF. I agree. 

Mr. RYAN [continuing]. The research, the opportunity for the 

businesses to benefit from this, but also the whole energy independence idea. And here in eastern Ohio, and western PA, and 

New York with all of the new developments with natural gas, it 

seems to me this would be a prudent way for us to proceed to continue to make these investments, and also which would not be necessarily your end, but incentives for public transit in cities, and you 

know, different regional authorities to have the ability and businesses to benefit from incentives to move in this direction. And it 

could be a job creator in so many different ways, cleaning the environments. A lot of these cities, we all know what the pollution is 

like in some of these cities as well. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Absolutely. You know, I would add that there is a 

second piece to that, and that is our aggressive enforcement of the 

Buy America Act. 

It is not just about funding the research. It is also making sure 

that the fruits of that investment result in domestic manufacturing 

jobs. When we first came in, the number of Buy America waivers 

issued by the FTA was about 47 a year. We are now down to three, 
130

and we are not happy about those three. So we have been very aggressive in insisting that the taxpayer dollars that this committee 

puts forward for transit be invested in U.S.-made products to the 

maximum extent the law allows. And that will be a key part of the 

new low-emission bus program—to make sure that we get the benefits of that research here in the United States. 

Mr. RYAN. Great. Amen. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. Ryan. 

The CR extends the funding level for the New Starts program for 

fiscal year 2012 level at $1.955 billion, with a 5 percent cut for the 

sequester.

How are you implementing the sequester on the Full Funding 

Grant Agreements? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, I don’t have a complete answer for you yet, 

Mr. Chairman, but we will certainly keep you advised. The final 

amount between the House and Senate on New Starts was just finalized in your concurrence of the Senate amendment on the last 

vote. So with that now final number, and the impact of the sequester, I will be going to the Secretary and talking about how we try 

and shoehorn these commitments into the available funding, but 

we do not have a methodology established just yet. 

Mr. LATHAM. Are you providing funds for any project not under 

the full funding agreements, and if so, why? How can you justify 

cutting the projects under agreement and funding other projects? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, respectfully, sir, you are asking me about the 

details of a plan that has not been developed yet. But the priority 

of the agency has always been for the Full Funding Grant Agreements we have signed. But until we have a complete methodology, 

I will need to come back to you on that, and perhaps the Secretary 

and I can visit you after that decision is made and just explain it 

personally in your office. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. We got introduced to the new MAP–21 program rather quickly this winter with the Transit Emergency Relief 

Program. The supplemental provided a total of $10.9 billion to repair transit systems damaged in the hurricane and other transportation needs. 

I would like to commend FTA and the Department for working 

with the transit authorities to get everyone moving again. I understand that the Memorandum of Understanding with FEMA as required by MAP–21 and the supplemental, has been signed. Can 

you tell us in a nutshell what is FEMA’s responsibility, versus 

what is FTA’s responsibility in the aftermath of the event? Is it 

straightforward what your roles are? 

Mr. ROGOFF. It is. It is particularly straightforward if we have 

available funding in the FTA Emergency Relief Program. And this 

committee also was able to answer the call there and get us funding promptly so that we could put it to work. I will say, our partnership with FEMA has been a very positive one, one that I think 

some of us might have questioned could be so positive and successful going in. But right after the storm, FEMA gave us a mission 

assignment so that FEMA and FTA staff could work side by side 

up in the region doing cost validation even before we had a President’s budget request, and before the committee had acted. 
131

So one of the reasons why we have been successful in getting 

money on the street quickly is we had done a lot of that cost validation work in advance. Once the President put forward his request and made it clear that that funding would all go to the new 

FTA Emergency Relief Authority, and then the Appropriations 

Committees followed suit, it was clear that the funding would go 

through FTA with FEMA assistance. And our principal role there 

is just making sure that there is no duplication, that there is no 

double dipping, if you will, that someone somehow got reimbursed 

for something from FEMA and also for the same expense from the 

FTA. And we have good procedures in place to make sure that does 

not happen. 

Mr. LATHAM. The transit emergency funds of about $2 billion was to go out for immediate needs, and then about $5.4 billion is really 

for anything authorized under Titles 23 and 49, which pretty much 

covers everything under the sun at the Department, and another 

$3.5 billion is for the regular Transit Emergency Relief Program. Who will make the decisions on the $5.4 billion for the general 

transportation money? Will it be you, the Secretary, or a task 

force?

Mr. ROGOFF. In terms of the transfer to other agencies, I expect 

it to be the Secretary because it is transferred—right now the only 

transfers I know being contemplated are transfers within the Department of Transportation, and this may be there to bring some 

resources to bear on Amtrak’s infrastructure. As you know, sir, up 

in the New York, New Jersey region, the infrastructure is shared 

by Long Island Railroad, Metro North Railroad, Amtrak, and New 

Jersey Transit. They all have a lot of shared infrastructure, some 

of which are Amtrak assets, and if we are going to address the 

needs of the entire system, we need to be able to get some money 

to—Amtrak, who is not an FTA grantee. Amtrak is certainly part 

of the mix up there that needs to be dealt with. So any of that 

transfer authority would be dictated by the Secretary. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Do you know what factors will be brought 

into determining the allocations? Particularly, for the mitigation 

part of it. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, mitigation is an eligible expense under the 

FTA program, so that would not necessarily require a transfer. But 

we are looking at the mitigation investments as sort of the next 

step. There are going to be some smaller mitigation investments so 

when you are making the investment in the restoration of an asset, 

you can also make that investment strong enough to mitigate the 

possibility of the flooding recurring next time. 

There are also some big-ticket mitigation investments being 

looked at up there that we are going to be—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Such as? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, there are investments that will do a lot to protect water encroachment on things like major rail yards and other 

shared assets. It is a very complicated picture because as some people have pointed out, if you protect one railroad’s asset, one tunnel 

of one railroad, you could, in protecting the Metro North, worsen 

the impact on the Long Island Railroad or Amtrak. So this really 

needs to be a regional discussion. And we are leading a regional 

discussion.
132

The Deputy Secretary and I met with all of the general managers 

up there with Secretary Donovan some weeks ago, and we are 

going to insist on regional cooperation and regional solutions on 

these bigger ticket items. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Joyce, do you have a question? Excuse me. Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, we are going to submit our questions 

for the record in the interest of time. 

Mr. LATHAM. God bless you. 

Mr. Joyce. 

Mr. JOYCE. No, Mr. Chairman, I apologize for being late though. 

Mr. LATHAM. Ms. Herrera Beutler. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. One more. 

Mr. LATHAM. Sure. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Just for my curiosity because this was 

a little bit before my time. Going back to the issue you were talking 

about of the special legislation, did you have a hand in writing that 

special legislation when you were on staff prior to your role as Administrator?

Mr. ROGOFF. I don’t recall if I was on the subcommittee staff at 

the time of that legislation. I am trying to remember now. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you. That was it. 

Mr. ROGOFF. I could get you more. I will just have to research 

what year that was and get you a more definitive answer. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. That would be great. 

[The information follows:] 

Upon further review, Mr. Rogoff was nominated to serve as Administrator to the 

FTA on April 8, 2009, at which time he recused himself from all FTA beusiness with 

the Senate THUD Appropriations Subcommittee. Mr. Rogoff was confirmed by the 

Senate on May 21, 2009, and began work at the FTA immediately thereafter. The 

legislation in question was not reported by the Senate until August 5, 2009. 

Mr. LATHAM. I think I just have one more. FEMA is reporting that another $545 million will be paid by the 

DRF and backfilled for the sequester’s effect on transit disaster 

money. Is that true that the DRF if is backfilling sequester? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, let me put it this way: I would be surprised 

in the following respects. Yes, we did lose $545 million as a result 

of the sequester, and I will have to look into this. But we also made 

clear that that $545 million would not come off of the response and 

recovery funding. It would come off the mitigation funding. Mitigation funding is something that is eligible under the FTA program. 

I am not sure it is eligible under the DRF, so that observation 

puzzles me, but I will certainly look into it. 

Mr. LATHAM. Well, FEMA is giving us the impression that they 

need to make $545 million available to FTA for the disaster costs. 

You are not aware of it? 

Mr. ROGOFF. I am not, sir. I will say this. There may be certain 

costs that FTA will not be able to reimburse for under our program 

that FEMA would, but as I mentioned earlier, we are going to 

make sure that it is not duplicative payments for the same item. 

There is going to be a clear accountability and eligibility chain before any of those payments happen. 

As of now, FEMA was about the business of getting started on 

making some payments for transit, and once we worked with 
133

FEMA, and got the appropriation, those payments did not happen. 

They literally handed their worksheets to us, and we picked them 

up and brought those expenses to bear on the FTA program, so 

there has not been any duplication to date, and I will have to look 

at that other observation. That is the first I have heard of it. 

Mr. LATHAM. Is there any loophole that says a recipient, if they 

ran out of money, then they could go to FEMA? 

Mr. ROGOFF. Well, there is. On the overall observation of running 

out of money, we are optimistic that we have plenty to handle response and recovery for Hurricane Sandy. 

Mr. LATHAM. Do you have extra? 

Mr. ROGOFF. No, I would not call it extra. It is the money for mitigation. And we consider it unfortunate that we lost that $500 

million for mitigation due to sequester. Like I said, it is the first 

I have heard of FEMA proposing to backfill it. And I am not sure 

they could for mitigation. We are very confident we have enough 

money for response and recovery. 

Mr. LATHAM. Any member have any more questions? 

Okay.

I think we will conclude in the interest of time here, because 

there are members that are going to be leaving town shortly. You 

can all submit questions for the record, which we will be doing 

also.

But with that, we thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. ROGOFF. Thank you for your time, sir. 

Mr. LATHAM. All right, very good. 

Thank you, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Questions for the record follow:] 
134

Submitted by Chairman Latham 

QUESTION #1: 

Transit System Service Areas of 50,000-200,000 Residents 

As you pointed out in an earlier response to a question about the change in the 'Designated 

Recipient' status for purposes of FT A funds, your staff consulted with a number of affected 

communities before insisting on changing the Designated Recipient provision in MAP 21. 

Please provide a list of those consulted communities. the approximate dates of each consultation, 

and the comments of each community. 

ANSWER: 

• To clarify my remarks, although Congress moved the definition of a designated recipient 

from 49 USC 5307 to 49 USC 5302, the definition did not change under MAP-21. There 

were, however. other recent changes related and unrelated to MAP-21. FT A has 

provided both interim guidance and technical assistance to explain these changes, as 

highlighted below. 

• In October 2012, FTA published Interim Guidance on MAP-2l (published in the Federal 

Register and found on the Funding and Finance page ofhttp://w\Vw.tta.doLgov) 

highlighting that the new authorization did modify existing programs and create new 

programs, resulting in different definitions for eligible recipients. For example, under 

MAP-21 there is a new consolidated Enhanced Mobility for Seniors and Individuals with 

Disabilities program and a new Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Program. Within each of 

these programs. MAP-2l defines eligible recipients differently. although the definition 

for each program references designated recipients. 

• In the October 2012 Interim Guidance. FT A also clarified the role of the Governor with 

respect to areas under 200,000 in popUlation. Specifically, FTA highlighted that based on 

the language in 49 U.S.C. Section 5336, the Governor (or Governor's designee) is 

responsible for suballocating the formula apportionments to areas under 200.000. 

Therefore, the Governor (or hislher designee) is the designated recipient for areas under 

200,000. Although many States and grantees believe this is a change, this definition is 

not new. nor is it related to MAP-21. Since the publication of our interim guidance, FTA 

has provided technical assistance, upon request, to explain the role of the Governor in 

suballocating/apportioning funds to areas under 200,000 in population. 

• Furthermore, under MAP-2L we understand there is some confusion about eligible 

recipients and subrecipients for the new Bus and Bus Facilities Formula Program. Based 

on statutory language, FT A is only able to make grants to the designated recipients. 

Therefore, for areas under 200,000 in population, the designated recipient is limited to the 

Governor or Governor's designee. which in most cases is the State DOT. This limitation 

is different from other programs, such as the Urbanized Area Formula Program (49 USC 
135

5307). Under the Urbanized Area Formula Program FTA can award grants directly to 

transit systems as direct recipients, although the governor is still the designated recipient 

and responsible for allocating funds. 

• Finally, during FY 2013 FTA began to administer grant programs based on 2010 Census 

information and new Census boundaries for urbanized and rural areas. FTA provided 

information in the summer of 20 12 to assist area~ in understanding the impacts of the 

2010 Census on FT A formula programs, and the possibility of new designated recipients 

in large urbanized areas. Specifically, FTA sent letters to all Governors and several other 

impacted cities and transit agencies about the 2010 Census changes. In addition, 

Frcquently Asked Questions (F AQs) about the Census changes were posted to the FT A 

website. 
136

Submitted bv Rep. Granger 

QUESTION: It is my understanding that the sequester will impact the new starts program, 

which is a primary financial resource for supporting locally planned, implemented, and operated 

major transit capital invcstments. 

Can you tell us how pending applications for new starts funding will be affected by the 

sequester? 

ANSWER: 

The sequester and other cuts that were implemented in the FY 2013 appropriations act 

had a significant impact on the FTA Capital Investment Grant Program. The FY 2013 

program funding level was $380 million below the President's FY 2013 Budget Request. 

Due to this lower level of funding. FTA had to implement a greater than five percent 

across the board cut in funding to all New aJld Small Starts projects under construction 

grant agreements. In addition, f()r thc first time in roughly 20 years, there was no funding 

available for any new projects not yet under a construction grant agreement. 

The FY 2013 sequester also impacted the FY 2014 President's budget recommendations 

for the Capital Investment Grant Program. In the FY 2014 budget. FTA recommended 

fully funding the planned commitments for projects under construction grant agreements, 

restoring the FY 2013 funding shortfalls for those projects under construction grant 

agreements that would be completed in FY 2014, and providing $120 million for Core 

Capacity. 

Additionally. FTA was able to recommend eight projects in the FY 2014 budget that are 

not yet under construction grant agreements that had been recommended for funding 

initially in the FY 2013 budget but received no funds in FY 2013 due to the sequester. 

There was not enough funding for the program to include in the FY 2014 budget projects 

not previously recommended in prior budgets, even though some projects in the program 

may be ready for a construction grant agreement during FY 2014. This could mean the 

projects get delayed and incur additional costs as they wait for federal funding. 
137

Submitted by Rep. Cole 

QUESTION #1: 

Administrator Rogoff, the last two years, the Oklahoma Transit Association, working through 

ODOT Transit Programs which submitted the tinal grant document, compiled a statewide 

request. On neither occasion were they informed of how the selection process worked and why a 

few systems within the State were chosen for funding, as opposed to partial funding of the 

Statewide request. Should it not be up to each State to determine how best to have funds 

allocated in the future? Would FTA consider allowing States the option of having an application 

considered as one, Statewide application? 

ANSWER: 

• Statewide applications submitted to fTA's State of Good Repair (SGR) discretionary 

bus and bus facilities program for fiscal years 2011 and 2012 often included several 

projects on behalf of multiple subrecipients. 

• The State of Good Repair discretionary grants program was a needs-based 

competition. Each individual project in a statewide application was reviewed and 

ranked individually and according to the evaluation process and criteria listed in the 

respective fTA Notices of Funding Availability published in the Fcderal Register. 

• Based on the structure of the grant proposal submitted, fT A did fund some Statewide projects. for example, if a project requested funding for similar buses to be 

provided around the State, FT A considered the application to be one State-wide 

proposal. 

• FTA based funding decisions on each project's need, final ranking and geographic 

diversity. FT A funded as many meritorious projects as possible and strives to balance 

funding commensurate with transit ridership across the country. 

• Additionally, FTA offered unsuccessful applicants the opportunity to receive a 

debrief of their proposal within 30 days of the awards announcement in the Federal 

Register. FTA would be happy to provide a debrief for Oklahoma DOT if requested. 
138

Requested by Representative Cole 

QUESTION 2#: 

Administrator Rogoff, under law adopted in the I 970s, transit systems that auction off property 

that reaches the end of its service life are required to return funds, if the sale is for more than 

$5,000, to the FTA. Would FTA consider supporting a change to raise the Fair Market Value 

amount and allowing transit systems to keep the funds? Would this not reward the transit system 

for the maintenance investment over the vehicle life which kept the vehicle in such a condition 

so as to be offered a higher sale price? 

ANSWER: 

• The requirement that a transit agency must return funds to FTA upon the sale of FT A 

assisted equipment, if the value is greater than $5,000. is not based in FTA enabling 

legislation. but rather it is contained in 49 CFR Part 18, "Unifonn Administrative 

Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments," 

also known as the Common Grant Rule. The Common Grant Rule is applicable to all 

Federal agencies and, therefore, is not within the realm of authority of either FTA or the 

US DOT to change. 

• The specific requirement applicable to the disposition of federally assisted equipment is 

49 CFR 18.32(e)(2) which states: 

(e) Disposition. When original or replacement equipment acquired under a grant or 

subgrant is no longer needed for the original project or program or for other activities 

currently or previously supported by a Fcderal agency. disposition of the equipment will 

be made as follows: 

... (2) Items of equipment with a current per unit fair market value in excess of $5.000 

may be retained or sold and the awarding agency shall have a right to an amount 

calculated by multiplying the current market value or proceeds from sale by the awarding 

agency's share of the equipment. 

• Federal Transit law, however. does allow FTA grantees to re-invest the proceeds from 

sale of equipment exceeding $5,000 pcr unit into other eligible capital projects. 49 

U.S.C. 5334(h)(4) addresses proceeds from the sale of transit assets no longer needed: 

(A) In general.-When real property, equipment. or supplies acquired with assistance 

under this chapter are no longer needed for public transportation purposes as detennined 

under the applicable assistance agreement, the Secretary may authorize the sale. transfer, 

or lease of the assets under conditions detennined by the Secretary and subject to the 

requirements of this subsection. 

(8) Use.-The net income from asset sales, uses, or leases (including lease renewals) 

under this subsection shall be used by the recipient to reduce the gross project cost of 

other capital projects carried out under this chapter. 

(C) Relationship to other authority.-The authority of the Secretary under this 
139

subsection is in addition to existing authorities controlling allocation or use of recipient 

income otherwise permissible in law or regulation in eilcct prior to the date of enactment 

of this paragraph. 

### 
140

Submitted by Rep. Quiglev 

QUESTION #1: As you know, MAP-21 expanded eligibility within the New Starts Program to 

allow improvements to existing transit systems that add capacity. Thesc improvements to legacy 

systems can have as much or more impact on increasing ridership than some new extension 

projects. Five years ago, the Chicago Transit Authority expanded Brown Line platforms in my 

district, allowing the line to expand to 8 car trains, which carry 40 percent more rides each day. 

That's 30.000 extra rides every day. More projects like this in Chicago could help expand 

ridership to meet future demand and reduce congestion on othcr over-crowded lines like the Red 

Line, which is also in my district. While other aspects ofMAP-21 have moved forward, we have 

not seen dedicated funding or guidance around the core capacity program, which could help 

cities across the country expand existing transit systems to meet the needs of the future. 

a) Is the FT A supportive of the core capacity provisions? 

b) If so, what plans does FT A have to issue guidance or request funding for core capacity 

programs? 

ANSWER: 

• FTA is very supportive of the new core capacity provisions ofMAP-21, but notes that the 

Capital Investment Program authorized funding level was decreased in MAP-21 while 

the types of projects eligible for funding was expanded. Even though the overall Capital 

Investment Grant program is facing unprecedented funding constraints. FTA 

recommended $120 million for core capacity projects in the FY 2014 budget. We 

recognize this may be only a small fraction of what is needed to fund critical capacity 

expansion projects in our legacy transit systems. 

• FT A plans to issue proposed guidance for public comment later this year on how it may 

implement the new MAP-2l provisions for the Capital Investment Grant program, 

including the core capacity provisions. 
141

Submitted by Rep. Ouigley 

QUESTION #2: Moving major transit projects quickly through development, engineering, and 

construction will save transit agencies, taxpayers, and transit riders a lot of money and 

time. MAP-21 encourages this common sense approach, funding a pilot program to expedite 

projects through alternative and innovative means, such as a Public-Private 

Partnership. Unfortunately, legislative language authorizing the pilot program allows only 

transit agencies in a "state of good repair" to be eligible. 

a) Is it true that most transit agencies in the US are not technically in a state of good repair, 

and this provision would thereby eliminate most, if not all major transit agencies from 

contention? 

b) If that's true, Chicago's core capacity projects would not be eligible for the pilot 

program. Would you support changing the law to waive that state of good repair 

requirement? 

ANSWER: 

• In a study conducted in 20 I 0, FT A found that 29 percent of all transit assets are in either 

poor or marginal condition. FTA's study found that 26 percent of rail assets and 41 

percent of bus assets are in marginal or poor condition. In this same study, FTA found 

that a $78 billion investment (2008 constant dollars) would be required to address the 

national backlog of transit asset repairs and replacements. 

• FT A has supported increasing funding for state of good repair activities, including it as a 

key reauthorization proposal in its Budget Requests to Congress. MAP-21 now funds a 

formula grant program to help with the needs. 

• FT A would not conclude that most transit systems are not in a state of good repair, since 

the meaning of the phrase has not yet been clearly defined. However, it is clear there are 

significant state afgood repair funding needs around the country, particularly at the 

largest and oldest transit systems. 

• FT A notes that the provisions in MAP-2l for the Pilot Program for Expedited Project 

Delivery allow only three projects to be selected, but no separate funding is identified. 

Rather, the projects selected must compete for the limited Capital Investment Grant 

Program funding. 
142

Submitted bv Rep. Quigley 

Question #3 

QUESTION: My state has enacted a law requiring Chicago's METRA, CTA, and Pace transit 

systems to have a universal fare card by 2015. While a universal farecard is a good idea that will 

make our transit system more efficient and benefit Chicagoans in the long run, in the short term 

funding the transition to a universal system may be difficult for our transit systems. Meeting the 

mandate is tricky for METRA because METRA's fares are distance based and riders don't go 

through a turnstile like they do to ride CTA' strains. 

a) I'm wondering if funds within FT A's R&D program are available to commuter rail 

agencies like ours to help fund improvement programs like these or if there are other 

available revenue streams that agencies like METRA should look at further to help fund 

these types of programs? 

ANSWER: 

• Over the past 30 years, FT A has supported research efforts to support universal and 

"smart card" fare card activities. Since 200 I, these activities have been managed under 

the Department of Transportation's multimodal Intelligent Transportations Systems Joint 

Program Office. 

• Historically, FT A's research, development. demonstration, and deployment efforts have 

focused on those technologies that have yet to be proven in the marketplace. This allows 

FTA's limited research funding to be focused on thc area of greatest need to transit 

agencies across the country. 

• As universal fare cards are already used in many U.S. transit markets, this would not 

make it a candidate for FTA research funding. However, fare collection equipment and 

supporting infrastructure - including those using universal farecard tcchnologies - can use 

funded under FTA's formula capital programs, such as the Urbanized Area Formula 

Grant program (Section 5307). 
(143)

TUESDAY, APRIL 16, 2013. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

WITNESS

HON. RAY LAHOOD, SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION 

Mr. LATHAM. The Subcommittee will come to order. Today we 

welcome Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood to testify on behalf of DOT’s fiscal year 2014 budget request. 

I know this may be the last time that you testify before us. We 

wish you the very, very best. I look forward to your testimony. This year, the department is requesting authority to spend $77 billion in fiscal year 2014. This represents an increase of $6.5 billion, or 9.2 percent from last year, which is a healthy increase in 

the current environment. 

Once again, the budget includes $50 billion for ‘‘immediate transportation investments.’’ This is a proposal we have seen three 

times before and is structured similar to the fiscal year 2009 stimulus package. Also similar to the stimulus package, it is not paid 

for or offset by reductions elsewhere. The President assumes a total of $214 billion to pay for two reauthorization programs and to shore up the Highway Trust Fund, 

which the CBO expects to have financial solvency issues in 2014. 

The budget proposes to pay for this with anticipated savings in the 

Overseas Contingency Operations fund, which is, for a lot of folks, 

is a dubious source, at best. 

While the Highway Trust Fund is having financial difficulty paying for its current obligations, the administration’s budget proposes 

to reopen the recently passed MAP–21 and fund rail programs from 

the trust fund. 

And just when you think it can’t get worse for the struggling 

trust fund, the budget proposes a 330 percent increase in rail funding, the largest increase in this entire budget. 

To put it in perspective, the budget request would increase the 

entire transportation budget by $6.5 billion; rail would receive $5 

billion of the $6.5 billion increase. We are moving from one tight 

budget year to another. 

This is an expensive proposal to put forth in this environment, 

especially with no realistic way to pay for it all. Moving transportation funds to the ‘‘mandatory’’ side of the ledger will only exacerbate our challenges, as mandatory programs are the largest contributors to our budget problems. And using OCO funds is not a 

realistic option. 

Many members hope that the drawdown of our forces in Iraq and 

Afghanistan will provide an opportunity to reduce the spending 

and the deficit and not serve as an excuse for even more spending. 

We have the difficult job of determining how to allocate a limited 
144

pot of funds among the programs within our jurisdiction. I am looking forward to hearing more details about your budget. 

Again, we welcome you, Mr. Secretary. 

Before I recognize you, I would ask Mr. Pastor for his opening 

statements.

Mr. PASTOR. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Mr. Secretary. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

the recognition. I also want to welcome Secretary LaHood this 

morning. And since this is—as you said, this may be his last appearance before this subcommittee as Secretary of Transportation, 

I want to thank him for his service to our country as the Secretary 

of Transportation. He truly has been a champion of safety and also 

a champion to invest in our transportation infrastructure. And so 

I want to thank you again for your service. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Mr. PASTOR. And wish you the best. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Secretary, a few weeks ago, we finished our 

work on the fiscal 2013 appropriation process where many transportation programs were put on auto pilot at the funding levels 

below the fiscal year 2012 funding level. In addition, Department 

of Transportation must absorb nearly $960 million in cuts due to 

sequestration that went into effect in early March. While not fully 

implemented and as of yet, these reductions will hit the operations 

of the FAA most dramatically and will significantly lower the base 

line for many transportation programs. President Obama has submitted a robust funding request for the Department of Transportation. With two small exceptions, the fiscal year 2014 budget fully 

funds the authorized levels included in MAP–21 for Department of 

Transportation’s highway, transit and safety agencies. 

The budget also proposes a significant increase in rail programs 

and includes funding to continue to modernize our aging air traffic 

control system. These investments are important to our economy 

and necessary to maintain and improve our nation’s transportation 

system. I look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Pastor. 

After the Secretary has given his opening statement, we will alternate and proceed with the 5-minute question rounds. 

And with that, Mr. Secretary, invite you to present your opening 

statement; your full written statement will be included in the 

record. And you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Pastor, 

and other members of the committee. 

I always look forward to the opportunity to come back to my old 

committee that I served on for 8 years and talk about our Fiscal 

Year 2014 budget. Since day one, President Obama and all of us 

at the Department of Transportation have been committed to putting people back to work, rebuilding and repairing our infrastructure. We have also worked tirelessly to ensure that our aviation, 

highway, rail transit, and pipeline systems are the safest in the 

world. The President’s 2014 budget provides the necessary resources to continue and expand these efforts. The President is re-
145

questing $77 billion for the Department of Transportation for fiscal 

year 2014, a 6 percent increase over 2012 funding levels. The President’s budget also includes an additional $50 billion for 

immediate investments to support critical infrastructure projects, 

such as improving America’s roads, bridges, transit systems, boarder crossings, railway, and runways. Together, these proposals will 

help us create jobs and invest in the 21st century transportation 

that business needs to compete. 

Inner city passenger rail continues to be critical to our efforts to 

improve intermodal connectivity and increase travel options—Four 

years ago, President Obama laid out his vision for high-speed rail. 

That vision has not been blurred or diminished, and we are working hard to fulfill it. Today, we have trains hitting 110 miles per 

hour in the Midwest, and the initial segment of Nation’s first 220- 

miles-per-hour high-speed rail network is set to break ground in 

California this year. We have invested in multi-modal train stations in communities across the city, creating jobs and revitalizing 

downtown districts in the process. 

The President’s 2014 budget continues this effort with a bold rail reauthorization proposal that will provide $40 billion over 5 years 

to invest in projects that strengthen and enhance rail services. As 

part of this proposal, $6.4 billion is included to significantly improve existing inner-city passenger rail service, develop new highspeed rail corridors, and strengthen the economic competitiveness 

of the freight rail system. 

The President’s 2014 budget also fully supports the authorized funding levels contained in MAP–21. We are proposing $53 billion 

for our highway transit and highway safety programs in 2014. The 

President’s budget also includes increased investment in highway 

traffic safety. The President is proposing over $560 million for 

NHTSA to support state highway safety initiatives. These grants 

will help us save lives and reduce injury. In addition, the President’s budget includes increased funding to expand our bus and 

truck safety programs. President’s budget requests $255 million for 

Pipeline Hazardous Material Safety Administration, most of which 

will increase pipeline safety. And, finally, the President’s plan provides $15.6 billion for the FAA to continue to support the safest 

aviation system in the world. This includes furthering our commitment to NextGen. Through NextGen advancements, we are improving safety, capacity, and the efficiency of air travel. The President’s 

budget requests includes $1 billion to continue to advance critical 

NextGen investments. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member, and members of the committee, why don’t I just conclude and answer your 

questions. Thank you. 

[The information follows:] 
146

STATEMENT OF 

THE HONORABLE RAY LAHOOD 

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING, AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED 

AGENCIES 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, HOUSE OF REPRESENT A TIVES 

April 16, 2013 

Introduction 

Chairman Latham, Ranking Member Pastor, and Members of the Subcommittee thank you for 

the opportunity to discuss the Administration's fiscal year (FY) 2014 Budget request for the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. Since day one, President Obama and all of us at the Department of 

Transportation have been committed to putting people back to work rebuilding and repairing our 

infrastructure and improving transportation safety. The President's budget does just that. The 

President is requesting $77 billion for Transportation in FY 2014 -- a 6 percent increase above FY 

2012 funding levels. 

In addition, the President's plan includes an additional $50 billion in immediate transportation 

investments to generate new jobs and economic growth here at home and improve our transportation 

infrastructure for future generations. $40 billion of this funding will be targeted for "Fix-It-First" 

investments that will improve America's roads, bridges, transit system, border crossings, railways, and 

runways. The remaining $10 billion will be used for programs where the Federal Government and our 

State and local partners use innovative strategies, foster best practices, and develop multimodal 

transportation solutions. Specifically, these funds will be used for T1GERlTlFTA, Transportation 

Leadership Awards, Rail Service Improvement, and FAA's NextGen initiative. 

Iuvesting in our Nation's Rail Systems 

Four years ago, President Obama laid out his vision for high-speed intercity passenger rail in 

America. And we've worked hard to fulfill that vision--·building or improving 6,000 miles of rail and 

upgrading 40 train stations nationwide. Today, we have trains hitting 110 MPH in Midwest, and the 

initial segment of the nation's first 220 MPH high-speed rail network is set to break ground in 

California this year. We have broken ground on multi-modal train stations in communities across the 

country-creating jobs and revital izing downtown districts in the process. 

The President's 2014 budget builds on our hard work so far-and continues to fultill his vision 

to build a national high performance rail system for all Americans. The President's budget includes a 

bold rail reauthori7.ation proposal that would provide $40 billion over five-years to invest in projects 

that will strengthen and enhance rail services. Of the total requested, $6.4 billion would be used in FY 

2014 to significantly improve existing intercity passenger rail services, develop new high speed rail 

corridors, and strengthen the economic competitiveness of our freight rail system. 
147

$2.7 billion of the FY 2014 funds would improve our current passenger rail service. This 

funding targets areas such as the Northeast Corridor where investments in infrastructure and equipment 

would improve service levels and set the stage for future growth. Funding is also requested to help 

Amtrak address needed improvements in its rail facilities and operations, to implement positive train 

control along Amtrak routes and commuter rail systems, and to bring rail stations and facilities into 

compliance with the American Disabilities Act (ADA). 

$3.7 billion ofthe FY 2014 funds would be used to develop new passenger rail corridors and to 

improve the Nation's freight network by adding capacity and removing bottlenecks that lead to 

congestion. The request also includes funds for comprehensive network planning which will help 

guide decision-making for future investments that benefit both our passenger and freight rail systems. 

All together, these investments will ensure that America's rail systems continue to provide 

reliable transportation services while at the same time laying the groundwork for future system growth 

and a new level of service. At DOT we have demonstrated that investments in these kinds of 

transportation infrastructure improvements spur economic development in local communities, provide 

businesses with opportunities to expand, and create needed jobs across the Nation. 

Continued Investment in Surface Transportation Infrastructure and Safety 

The President's FY 2014 budget fully supports the authorized funding levels, program 

structure, and performance based investment approach set forth in the "Moving Ahead for Progress in 

the 21 sl Century" (MAP-21) surface transportation legislation in its final year. 

The President is requesting a total of$53 billion in resources for our highway and transit 

programs in FY 2014. This funding ensures needed highway and transit infrastructure improvements 

continue and underscores our commitment to highway and transit safety as a top priority. The Budget 

also reserves funding in future years (after the expiration ofMAP-21) tor a robust, long-term surface 

transportation reauthorization program beginning in FY 2015. Our reauthorization funding plan, 

includes a proposed 25 percent increase above the FY 2014 funding levels for several years. 

The budget includes increased investments for surface transportation safety. Over $560 million 

is provided for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to support State 

highway safety initiatives. These grants will help fund seat belt, drunk driving, and distracted driving 

education and enforcement. In addition, the budget includes $572 million for the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to expand our bus and truck safety enforcement efforts and 

$27 million for the Federal Transit Administration (FT A) for the new transit safety initiative 

authorized in MAP-21. 

Finally, we are continuing our efforts to improve the safe transport of hazardous materials 

through pipelines and other transportation modes. The President's request includes $255 million for 

the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to enhance our oversight in this 

area. The request will allow the Department to fund 40 more pipeline safety inspectors as part of an 

initiative to double the number of pipeline inspectors nationwide. These additional inspectors will 

work with the States to continue to ensure that pipelines are inspected frequently and that pipeline 

operators follow strict safety standards. The requested increase in funding for pipeline safety is offset 

by pipeline user fees. 

2 
148

Continued Modernization through FAA's NextGen Initiative 

The President's plan provides $15.6 billion for the FAA to support continued operation of the 

National Airspace. Nearly $10 billion of this funding supports the operation, maintenance, 

communication, and logistical support of the air traffic and air navigation systems. 

FAA is modernizing the management of the National Airspace System through the Next 

Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) initiative. NextGen enables the FAA to build upon 

current capabilities and lay the groundwork for future technologies. Advancements in NextGen will 

improve the safety, capacity. and efficiency of air travel by replacing ground-based radar surveillance 

with a modern satellite-basen system. NextGen also capitalizes on the latest state-of-the-art 

capabilities in modern aircraft technology. 

The FY 2014 President's Budget request includes $1 billion to continue to advance NextGen 

initiatives. This includes $282 million to implement satellite-based surveillance capabilities, $115 

million to advance text-based communications, and $32 million to fund consolidation of the databases 

used to develop new arrival and departure procedures at airports. The advances provided by NextGen 

help FAA move from a system of air traffic control to a system of modern air traffic management. 

The request for FAA also includes a new approach for funding the Airport Improvement 

Program (AlP). The Budget provides $2.9 billion for AlP and enables all PFC eligible airports to raise 

the Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs) from $4.50 to $8.00 as an alternative means to invest in airport 

projects. Our proposal focuses federal grant funding on smaller commercial and general aviation 

airports that do not have adequate access to additional revenue or other outside sources of capita\. At 

the same time, the budget gives large hub airports and all other PFC eligible airports greater flexibility 

to generate their own revenue for important capital projects. 

Conclusion 

We became the greatest country in the world, because generations before us had the courage 

and the foresight to invest in a better future. Today, we have a duty to invest in a modern 

transportation network that will improve safety, create jobs, encourage businesses to expand and help 

us compete in a global economy. The President's 2014 budget will put people to work rebuilding and 

upgrading our nation's infrastructure-and it will help us continue to invest in a transportation network 

that will meet the needs of21 st century America. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to present the President's FY 2014 

budget proposal for the Department of Transportation. Your support of this plan will help address the 

transportation needs of today as well as those of future generations of Americans. 

### 

3 
149

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. And again 

welcome. Thank you for the great job that you have done at the department.

Secretary LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Mr. LATHAM. After 7 years of short-term extensions, the 2-year 

surface authorization act, MAP–21, was recently enacted. Although 

the DOT budget request would fund the highways, motor carriers, 

and safety programs at the MAP–21 levels, which is $55 billion, it 

also reopens MAP–21 midstream to pay for a 5-year, $40 billion 

rail package from the trust fund as mandatory spending. The fiscal 

year 2014 costs exceed $6 billion, which is a hefty increase compared to the $1.5 billion in rail funding for fiscal year 2013. As we 

are all aware, Congress didn’t receive a surface transportation reauthorization proposal from the administration. I just wonder when 

we can expect the proposal from the administration about the official rail reauthorization package that has your 5-year, $40 billion 

proposal.

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the President has been focused since he was sworn into his second term on 

sequestration, on guns, and on immigration. And I believe that 

when you all finish working on, certainly, guns and immigration, 

you will see a bold plan put forth by this administration, which will 

include funding. 

Mr. LATHAM. Well, we would like to continue to know what we 

are paying for before we appropriate the funds, obviously. As early 

as possible, I would really like to see the legislative text that you 

are proposing. I assume that is forthcoming. 

Secretary LAHOOD. It will be a part of the President’s vision once 

he is not busy with these other matters. 

Mr. LATHAM. So it is contingent upon getting—— 

Secretary LAHOOD. It is contingent upon you all taking action on 

three things that you all have been paying a lot of attention to, 

guns, immigration, and sequestration. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. The Highway Trust Fund will begin having 

problems meeting its current obligations on the transit side in 

2014. The budget proposes to augment the trust fund with a total 

of $214 billion from the Overseas Contingency Operations; $40 billion of it is from rail, $89 billion from surface or for surface transportation, and $85 billion to make the trust fund solvent. 

Given that paying for your budget proposal in the OCO was 

equivalent, really, to putting the expenses on the credit card and 

even the administration has admitted that, is there any other way 

of funding the request? Or, if not, what programs are you ready 

to——

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, for 2 years, the first 2 years that I was 

in this job, you all criticized us for not coming up with a way to 

fund transportation. So you can’t have it both ways here. I know 

you will have it both ways, but you shouldn’t have it both ways. 

For the last 2 years, after receiving criticism for the first 2 years 

for no funding, we have come up with a funding mechanism. Now, 

there really is an account with this money in it. And what the 

President proposes is to take half of the money and apply it against 

the deficit and take the other half and give part of it to the Department of Transportation to fund our programs. This is not made up. 
150

This is not a fiction. There really is an account where this money 

exists. And that is how the President proposes and this administration proposes to do the pay-for, which you asked us to do for 2 

years in a row. And for the last 2 years, that is what we have intended to do. 

Mr. LATHAM. There is money in that account? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Yes, sir, there sure is. 

Mr. LATHAM. Has it been appropriated? 

Secretary LAHOOD. $600 billion in savings from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. LATHAM. Has it been appropriated? 

Secretary LAHOOD. That I don’t know, Mr. Chairman. I assume 

this high-powered staff that you all have sitting behind you knows 

the answer to that. 

Mr. LATHAM [continuing]. Money in the account. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Then you ought to appropriate it because it 

is there, it is savings. 

Mr. LATHAM. Isn’t there a problem with converting all the transportation funding to mandatory and without providing any kind of 

a long-term revenue source? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, as I indicated a few minutes ago, the 

President will have a bold vision and a pay-for once he is able to 

persuade all of you to do something on guns and immigration. And 

hopefully fix sequester. 

Mr. LATHAM. My time has expired. Thank you. 

Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. PASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to deal with the airport improvement program. You pro- pose $450 million reduction to the FAA’s airport grant program, 

AIP, bringing the funding to the—in the 2014, down to $2.9 billion 

from a 3.43. Entitlement funds would only be preserved for smalland medium sized-primary airports; nonprimary airports would 

lose their annual entitlement of $150,000 per year. The large-hub 

airports will lose their entitlement funds but will be eligible for discretionary funds and will be allowed to raise passenger facility 

charges from $4.50 to $8 per passenger. 

Mr. Secretary, changes to the passenger facility charges, the 

PFC, are typically handled through the authorization process. If 

the PFC is not increased, how much, if any, does the administration request change. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, the Airport Improvement Fund, AIP, is 

funded at $2.9 billion. And the proposal uses the Federal money to 

support small- and medium-size airports. It also lets airports raise 

the passenger facility charge from $4.50 up to $8. This way, the 

larger airports have the flexibility to use the funding as they think 

best. That really is what this proposal is about. 

Mr. PASTOR. But I—the question I have is, if you don’t have the 

authorization process, and the PFC is not increased, what do you 

do with the reduction in funds? Are you going to relook at it and 

make another determination if we don’t have the passenger—the 

PFCs? Because this, I think, was brought about a year ago, same 

idea.

Secretary LAHOOD. It was. 

Mr. PASTOR. And nothing happened. 
151

Secretary LAHOOD. It was proposed a year ago. Sylvia tells me we go back to the current funding at $3.35 billion. 

Mr. PASTOR. Okay. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Yes. I should have mentioned that Sylvia 

Garcia is our Acting Secretary for Budget and Programs and Chief 

Financial Officer. 

Mr. PASTOR. You have a great person. 

Secretary LAHOOD. I agree with that. 

Mr. PASTOR. I have had a—well, she many times has me on my 

knees begging for requests. Now that she is in a higher role, my 

respect continues with her. And I am very happy that she will continue the funding at last year’s level. 

What was the rationale for eliminating the annual entitlement of 

$150,000 for the small, nonprimary airports? 

Secretary LAHOOD. I will have to get back to you for the record 

on that, Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. PASTOR. The other one is, what benefit do the small, small, 

non-primary airports get out of your proposal, if any benefit? 

Secretary LAHOOD. I will get back to you for the record on that. 

Mr. PASTOR. Okay. 

We recently had the FAA announce closures of some control towers. I think it was 149 that were scheduled, and now that it is delayed to June 15th. Do you think there will be further revisions on 

the towers that have been already named to be closed by the June 

15th date? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, this brings up the point about how 

dumb and difficult sequester is. It is a dumb idea because it is a 

meat-ax approach to budgeting. And there is not much logic involved in it. And there is not much consideration given to really 

looking at the merits of certain programs and really making judgments where to cut or whether a program is a good program or not. 

So that, for starters, sequestration has made it very difficult. We 

have to come up with a billion dollars. At the Department of Transportation, we have 55,000 employees; 47,000 are FAA employees. 

The lion’s share of the billion dollars, over $600 million, has to 

come from the FAA. So we have just sent letters to our employees 

telling them that they may be furloughed up to 11 days. Now, 

these are Federal employees. Federal employees don’t make a lot 

of money, but they serve the American people. At the FAA, their 

primary mission is safety. And so the decisions about closing airports has been very, very difficult. I represented for 14 years 20 

counties in Illinois. And I had a lot of small airports. And so I know 

the difficulty in announcing that an airport is going to be closed, 

particularly in rural America or an area outside of a metropolitan 

area. These are not decisions we wanted to make, but we had to 

make. And our plan is to continue with the announcements that we 

have made. The reason for the delay and the reason that we asked 

the court for the delay till June 15th is to make sure we get it 

right. And to make sure that we can do what we say we are going 

to do. 

Mr. PASTOR. I yield back. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Pastor. Ms. Herrera Beutler. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you for your time. You probably— 

you might have an inkling as to what I am going to ask you about. 
152

It is about the Columbia River Crossing Project in Portland. We 

have talked about this. You were recently out in my State Leg talking to the State lawmakers about whether or not to fund this 

project. And you have made it clear it is an Obama Administration 

priority. I understand that there are about three New Starts programs that have not received full funding grant agreements but is 

still a priority; they are still receiving money, even though they 

haven’t had the grant signoff. This is one of them. 

And I wanted to point out a couple of things and get your take, 

because I have some real concerns with how this project is moving 

forward. And having just heard you talk about the negative impacts as you see on—because of sequestration, I think it is really— 

these are salient points for you to consider as you are promoting 

this project in its current form. 

One of the things that—and I have just asked the project sponsors about, you know, in Seattle, the big controversy over this 

bridge is that—and the administration is promoting this—is the 

light rail piece. You know, a lot of us are beginning to call for a 

bus rapid transit instead because it more cost effective. Everybody 

knows the bridge—it is a Federal—I think it is a Federal responsibility. It is on I–5, connects Canada to Mexico. It is the last drawbridge on I–5. So the fact we need to change it and make it save 

I don’t think is the argument. It is what it looks like. 

And seems like a lot of folks from outside our region keep promoting the light rail piece. We are starting to say bus rapid transit 

is more cost effective, and the numbers seem to bear out. In the 

last about 5 years—the average per-mile cost of light rail nationwide is about $35 million. There has been about two projects in our 

neck of the woods that have significantly exceeded that; one is in 

Portland, where it is $179 million per light rail mile; and one is— 

the latest one is in Portland, which is $204 million per light rail 

mile. These are really expensive, partly because of the soil and 

there was elevated pieces, and they had a tunnel, significant environmental or—there were a lot of challenges. So it is not usually 

this expensive. 

However, the plan that the administration is promoting right 

now would be the most expensive in the Nation at $293 million for 

a 2.9–mile expansion. So it is $293 million per mile for light rail 

on this bridge. My biggest concern is my constituents and whether 

they are going to have to pay the cost overruns here, because there 

is no justification for these numbers. In fact, if you look at how this 

money is going to be spent, $7 million would be spent on a Hood 

River Channel restoration 60 miles east of the facility; $10 million 

for a curation facility, also known as a museum; $3 million for Oregon’s mass transit organization, TriMet, in South Portland. So, as 

you can see, there a lot of stuff built into this cost that this administration is still promoting. And I hear you talk about cuts and 

costs and overruns elsewhere. I guess I would ask, do you think 

this is all worth it for 1 minute off the commute time that this 

bridge and this project would save, according to the CRC’s own documents?

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, first of all, we are not building the 

bridge to get somewhere faster. 
153

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Oh, really? That has been one of the reasons that has been sold. 

Secretary LAHOOD. DOT has never promoted building anything 

to get anywhere faster. We don’t promote things to get places faster. We don’t promote building roads or bridges to get places faster. 

What we have promoted is the idea that for 10 years, people in 

the region have planned this. The people in the region decided 

what this project would be. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So can I challenge you on that, Mr. Secretary?

Secretary LAHOOD. You can. But at some point, I would like to 

finish answering your question. But if you want to challenge me, 

go ahead. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Well, just on that statement. Because 

this is an incredibly important issue for my biggest county. We are 

still hovering around double-digit unemployment; we have been for 

4 years. They are going to pay the lion’s share portion of this cost. 

And these people just in November voted down the local matching 

tax that is required, under my understanding, for a New Starts 

grant. So, yes, there are those, particularly from outside of this 

county, that have called for light rail to come into Clark County. 

But it is not—I guess—I think you need to understand it is not this 

county that has asked for it. 

Secretary LAHOOD. This is not a county bridge. This is a regional 

bridge. This is—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So is the department going to pick up 

the cost overruns that comes from it? 

Secretary LAHOOD. This is not a county bridge. It is a regional 

bridge. It connects two States over the Columbia River. It is an unsafe bridge. It is a bridge that needs to be replaced. There is no 

dispute about any of that. This is not a one-county bridge. This is 

a bridge that connects North America, from Canada to Mexico. This 

is a regional approach. It is a two-State approach. It has been in 

the planning for 10 years. 

Now, we didn’t make up the idea that there ought to be a transit 

line. That was done by the people over a 10-year period who 

planned the bridge. 

If you all in the region decide that you don’t want a transit line, 

so be it. But you are going to start over. It is going to take you 

another 10 years to plan what you want. And it is, I think, for the 

people that have been planning it for 10 years, it is a little bit of 

a slap in the face. But if things have changed and the people that 

planned this over 10 years want to change the design of the bridge, 

so be it. We will take our money and go somewhere else. And you 

can all start over with the environmental impact statement and 

take 10 years to plan a bridge that needs to be replaced. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you. 

Mr. LATHAM. Gentlewoman’s time as expired. 

Mr. Quigley. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Good morning. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you for your service. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Thank you. 
154

Mr. QUIGLEY. Speaking on behalf of the mayor of City of Chicago, 

we will take that money. 

When I got on this committee, I talked about the region all the 

time, as you are. And, of course, he reminded me that by the word 

‘‘region,’’ I mean Chicago. So once I understood that, I was just 

fine.

Let me ask you a question relating to something you had touched 

on before, but let me ask it in a way that you can give a very succinct answer to. The president’s budget allows for an increase in 

the passenger facility charge up to $8 for the large hub airports, 

given that they would give some of that back to FAA so that it 

would go to the smaller regional airports for their infrastructure 

needs. Just how critical is that increase to smaller airports and the 

larger airports in the coming years? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, we know that airports all over the 

country, whether it is O’Hare or Peoria or other large hub airports, 

all are going to need some modernization over the next several 

years. Some will need additional runways. Some will need to 

lengthen runways. These airports, whether they are in Chicago or 

in Peoria, are an economic engine for the community. They provide 

jobs. And so we want to recognize that we are not just going to 

fund the big airports, but we have an obligation to work with the 

smaller airports, too. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Right. And this fund hasn’t been—this fee hasn’t 

been increased since 2000, I believe, if that is correct. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Yes. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Let me ask you another question about positive 

train control. As you know, the Rail Safety Act in 2008 mandated 

that this be in place by, I think, 2015. We are now hearing from 

the Federal Railroad Administration, CRS, and the GAO of all published reports saying this isn’t going to happen. Your thoughts on 

whether or not—— 

Secretary LAHOOD. It is going to happen. This is our number one 

rail safety program. Positive train control is about safety. Our 

number one agenda, what we get up every day and think about at 

DOT is safety. This will be done. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. I am not arguing one point or another. I guess the 

question I am asking is, it appears that both freight and commuter 

rail are saying they don’t have the time or the resources to get this 

done in time. So how do we get to this point by 2015? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, I think that—I don’t know about the 

time part. But this is an expensive proposition. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. I want to get it done, too. 

Secretary LAHOOD. This is not something that we made up at 

DOT. Congress passed this. And they passed it on the safety aspect 

of it. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. And I am not questioning that at all, Mr. Secretary. And I am all for safety. But you would—you raised a nuance there when you said the timing issue. And I think that is all 

anyone is raising now. 

I just want to know, is it possible to get it done by 2015, and 

what would it take to get it done by that time? 
155

Secretary LAHOOD. Our goal is to get this done. Obviously, we 

need the resources to get it done. And it is our number one rail priority.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Okay. I look forward to working with you if there 

is a—if it is going out to get the resources, fine. If it is working 

with my freight and passenger lines that run through our district 

and our region, I would be glad to work with you on those. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. I guess the only question is not whether it is getting done; it is, how the heck do we get it done by 2015? 

Secretary LAHOOD. It will be difficult. But we have that as a 

goal.

Mr. QUIGLEY. All right. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Quigley. 

I don’t like sequester any more than you do. But were you—and 

the administration, the White House, the Press Secretary said it 

was a White House idea, and they insisted on it because it would 

be so horrible. Were you contacted by the White House before they 

insisted on this sequester? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well—— 

Mr. LATHAM. About the ramifications that—— 

Secretary LAHOOD. We all, obviously, had our input into the idea 

that if there was a sequester, there would be shared pain across 

the administration. 

Mr. LATHAM. But when they proposed it, you were not asked 

about specific—— 

Secretary LAHOOD. We didn’t take a vote on it. 

Mr. LATHAM. I am sure. And I appreciate that candor. 

Question about nationwide investments. There has been a concern about how we as a government can address transportation 

problems obviously that affect us systemwide, nationwide, and how 

we resolve moving freight from the West Coast ports inland and 

how we resolve the bottlenecks in places like Chicago or Fort 

Worth or the choked I–95 corridor. In SAFETEA–LU, the authorizers tried to create a program for projects of regional and national 

significance. But that all got earmarked. And in the stimulus bill, 

the Senate tried to address it by creating TIGER, which seems to 

hang around forever. And MAP–21 created 1-year authorization for 

a national TIGER-like program but didn’t continue that authorization for 2014. Apparently, that was not a priority. 

Can you give us any evidence that DOT is using the discretionary program to address nationwide projects? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Sure. 

Mr. LATHAM. And is there any office or program or anything at 

the department that looks at this on a nationwide basis? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Sylvia Garcia, Acting Assistant Secretary for 

Budget and Programs runs the TIFIA program. 

Mr. LATHAM. She should. She will do it well. 

Secretary LAHOOD. And that is a program that you all provided 

a lot of additional money. The TIFIA program is a loan program 

that we have about $750 million this year and over a billion next 

year. That money was provided in MAP–21. It was a way to say 

that big projects need to have an opportunity to leverage other dol-
156

lars. And we just announced that we are going to consider a loan 

to completely redo the Riverwalk along the Chicago River. We are 

working with New York on a large bridge project, the Tappan Zee 

Bridge project. They submitted a letter. 

I think we have about 29 letters of interest for the TIFIA loan 

program. Almost all of these, Mr. Chairman, are projects of national significance. They are big projects. They are projects that 

can’t be funded out of any one pot of money. They need private dollars, which is what TIFIA really—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Riverwalk in Chicago is a project of national significance?

Secretary LAHOOD. Yes. The Chicago River is a natural resource 

that can benefit thousands of people. 

Mr. LATHAM. We have of a river walk in Des Moines, too. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Fine, submit a letter. We will be happy to 

take a look at it. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Didn’t know you had a river. 

Mr. LATHAM. We have got several. We flood all the time. 

Why didn’t you propose funding the Authorized Projects of National Regional Significance program? And if we are going to provide funding in 2014 for TIGER, wouldn’t it make sense to go with 

an authorized program or a—rather than one that was made up? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well look, Mr. Chairman, we don’t pass the 

bills, you all do that. We now have a TIGER 5 program that we 

are announcing $475 million for. We didn’t dream that up. That 

was passed by Congress. You all like TIGER. Somebody around 

here does. We have had five programs. And what it funds are innovative, creative projects that there is no other place to get the 

money from. Some of which are in Iowa, by the way, which I will 

be happy to provide you a list of. These are opportunities for communities to come to DOT with innovative, creative ideas, and there 

is no other pot of money. And Congress seems to like it because you 

have given us five different opportunities to—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Is it authorized? 

Secretary LAHOOD. No, sir, it is not. We don’t authorize programs; that is your job. 

Mr. LATHAM. Right. 

Secretary LAHOOD. But if you give us the money, there are plenty of places around the country that are clamoring for ways to innovate in transportation. 

Mr. LATHAM. How much of that is going to go to, quote, ‘‘highspeed rail’’? And it was interesting earlier, you said the department 

never looks at speed or time to get somewhere as a consideration 

of projects. Isn’t high speed rail, whatever that is, supposed to get 

people there faster? 

Secretary LAHOOD. We have never promoted high-speed rail on 

the speed aspect of it. In Illinois, they invested over $3 billion to 

fix up the tracks to get trains from Chicago to St. Louis going from 

79 miles an hour to 110. That was their decision. In California, 

they have a plan in place that they have been working on for 10 

years where we have invested over $3 billion. Their trains will go 

200 miles an hour. On the Northeast Corridor, we have invested 

over $3 billion, not to get trains to go faster—although Amtrak is 
157

working on that—it is to fix up 50-year-old, aging catenary and infrastructure.

So our investments go where there are Governors or stakeholders, some who want to fix up infrastructure, some who want 

to buy new cars, some who wants trains to go faster. 

Mr. LATHAM. With the announcements you are going to have on 

the TIGER 5, is there high-speed rail money in that? 

Secretary LAHOOD. No. There is no earmark for any program, no. 

If you look at the notice that will be out on Friday, it just simply 

says there is $475 million. 

Mr. LATHAM. $475 million. 

Secretary LAHOOD. That is correct, yes. 

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Dent, are you ready? 

I am sorry, Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. PASTOR. Talk about sequestration, I agree with you; it is a 

bad idea, and we did vote, and I voted no for it because it was a 

bad idea then. So but we have to live with its ramifications. 

I am going to go back to the control towers: 149, in April, they 

are going to be shut down, but then made the decision that we 

would go into June. 

Now, as an example, and what I am asking the question, in 

Glendale, there is a control tower that is in very close proximity 

to Luke Air Force Base. Luke Air Force Base is getting the F–35s. 

And it has always been a high priority for FAA because you have 

Luke so close to the traffic coming from Glendale and Maricopa 

County that that control tower had some significance in terms of 

safety. And so I am going to ask the question this way: In the determination of going from April to June, will there be consideration 

on the different airports that were deemed to be closed to say because of different factors we are now going to take this airport off 

the list? Is this one of the reasons that you went from April to June 

or what is the reason that we—— 

Secretary LAHOOD. In the beginning, Mr. Pastor, we did consult 

with our colleagues at the Defense Department about airports that 

were near military facilities, and we consulted with our colleagues 

at the Defense Department when there were airports that had Air 

Guard units on those airports. And we went with their judgment 

on this. We didn’t want to close a tower if it was going to have an 

impact on something that the Defense Department thought would 

be a serious detriment to the unit that is there or to an airport 

nearby.

And the reason that we extended the time was to give our lawyers, really, more opportunity to answer some of the concerns that 

had been put forth by the plaintiffs and also to give airports an opportunity. Some airports are actually going to put the money up to 

keep these open. Because in the President’s 2014 budget, there is 

money for these airports. And so some communities are finding the 

resources to keep the airports open. Frankly, number one, it was 

for legal reasons, but number two, it was to give communities a 

chance to see if they could find their own resources. 

Mr. PASTOR. I am going to yield back and wait for the next 

round. Go into a different line of questioning. 

Mr. LATHAM. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. Dent. 
158

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Secretary.

Secretary LAHOOD. Good morning. 

Mr. DENT. Great to see you again. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Mr. DENT. Few things. MAP–21, as you know, was an important 

step toward improving our Nation’s transportation, infrastructure 

and systems as well as maximizing efficiencies within the department. I recognize the department is working to implement the reforms and promulgate regulations directed by the new law. I am 

interested in your prioritization of these initiatives in the constrained budgetary environment. 

Specifically, I want to highlight an issue one of my constituents 

has brought to my attention. For a few years now, a company in 

my district has voiced serious concerns about the Federal Motor 

Carriers Safety Administration Hazardous Material Safety Permit 

Program, HMSP, I guess. As you are probably aware, this is a safety permit program for motor carriers of certain hazardous materials. It is intended to ensure a higher fitness standard than is required of regular trucking companies. 

Under the program, a carrier’s fitness is based in solely on limited out-of-service violation history. My constituent’s frustrations 

are twofold. He believes the standards used to evaluate carriers do 

not accurately measure safety; and, two, current rules do not provide an appeals process prior to automatically being denied a permit. These seemingly arbitrary rulings are having real consequences and effect on their livelihoods, and actually it favors very 

large companies over smaller companies. Pursuant to MAP–21, 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is conducting a study 

of Hazardous Material Safety Permit Program. That study should 

be completed this summer, as I am told and reported to Congress 

by an October 1st deadline. 

Mr. Secretary, I want to acknowledge that your agencies have 

been extremely responsive to my office when we have made inquiries, and I want to thank them for their professionalism that they 

have always extended to me and to my office. And I know Administrator Farrell has been personally engaged on this. I am just looking for your commitment that you will seriously consider this industry stakeholder feedback in the HMSP study and pursue recommendations highlighted in that report. 

In the meantime, I would simply ask that you utilize your agencies to the fullest extent possible to review, where you have authority, to pursue administrative remedies, expedite interim resolutions 

as soon as possible. This is a big issue where I live. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Sure. Of course, you have my commitment to 

listen to your constituent and to listen to you and to see if there 

is a way that we can be helpful. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you. 

It is a very important issue to us. I just wanted to make you 

aware of it. 

And the second, obviously, on the issue of the contract tower program, the administration’s decision to close the contract towers has 

gathered a lot of attention, obviously. Since the administration 

originally slated the first round of closures of, I guess, 149 towers 
159

to begin on April 7th, but I guess now decided to delay the closures 

until June 15th, how do you plan to keep these 149 towers open 

until June 15th if, as the administration has claimed, you don’t 

have any flexibility on those cuts? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, we found the money to do it. And that 

is why we went to court and asked for the extension. 

Mr. DENT. Do you foresee any further revisions to the list of the 

149 contract tower closures now that the FAA will be funding the 

towers at least until—— 

Secretary LAHOOD. I think the only revision would come if a 

community came to us and said we have the money to keep the 

tower open. We don’t have the money to keep them open. We just 

simply don’t. 

And let me just say, too, Mr. Dent, this has been painful. As I 

said to Mr. Pastor, as someone who represented a fairly rural district, I know how important these airports are. And I know there 

is going to be job loss when an airport tower closes and an airport 

closes.

Mr. DENT. I just wanted to say, I know in my district, the one 

contract tower feels they could—they could manage this without a 

closure, responsibly and within budget. I just wanted to share that 

with you. 

Secretary LAHOOD. We have told airports, if you can find the 

money to keep your airport open, we will make sure the paperwork 

gets done so that can happen. 

Mr. DENT. Okay. 

Secretary LAHOOD. We will not stand in the way. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you. I will deliver that message back to them. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

And, finally, I know you are familiar with my interest in pipeline 

safety. And I certainly appreciated your visit to my district back in 

2011, shortly after that terrible explosion in Allentown that killed 

five people. And so I wanted to thank you for all the work you have 

done on pipeline safety. Obviously, it made some positive progress 

on the issue with the Pipeline Safety Job Creation Act of 2011. I 

see that yearly inspections rose to 46 percent in 2011 to 1,340. And 

PHMSA has fulfilled the goal of hiring 135 inspection enforcement 

staff. I know PHMSA has experienced challenges in filling vacancies. And I noted that there was a request for direct hiring authority. I wanted to see if you could comment on those issues. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, first of all, let me say thank you to you 

for your leadership and to Congress for passing a very, very strong 

pipeline safety bill that gave us the authority to hire additional 

people. All of the people that you authorized, we have hired. And 

you will see from the President’s budget we are asking for additional inspectors. We think that is the way to really correct the 

problem. And we appreciate what Congress has done. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. LATHAM. The gentleman’s time has expired. I apologize to 

Mr. Joyce. I actually recognized Mr. Dent out of turn there, since 

you arrived earlier. 

But Mr. Quigley. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman. 
160

Mr. Secretary, I know you are occasionally fond of pointing out 

that we created many of these Frankenstein legislative monsters 

that you have to address. Well, here is at least one more. The pilot 

program in MAP–21 that helps get programs through an expedited 

fashion through development, engineering, and construction, some 

of it is through a public/private partnership. As you know, there is 

a little provision in there that says they have to be in a state of 

good repair to be eligible for this, which means almost no one who 

is a large entity is eligible to qualify for what could be a very helpful program. Could you comment on that and—— 

Secretary LAHOOD. What I would like to do, Mr. Quigley, is 

check with some of our administrators and see if that language has 

inhibited us from really moving ahead. I don’t have the specifics on 

that. Obviously, I am aware that Congress wanted to cut short the 

time within which we approve projects. But I need to really look 

at what we have been doing on that. I don’t have a good answer 

for you, but I will get it for you. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. I appreciate it. It seems to be contradictory. Here 

is the agencies that need this most would be the ones least eligible 

for those funds. So appreciate it if you would get back to us and/ 

or our staffs. 

Talking a little about core capacity. I believe it’s $120 million in 

fiscal year 2014. Can you comment on the process for how that is 

going to be allocated for 2014, whether it will be a competitive 

process for those funds? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Again, I will have to get back to you. Rather 

than just trying to talk off the top of my head on that, I would 

rather get you the specifics. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Okay. That is fine. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would yield back. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Quigley. 

Mr. Joyce. 

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Morning, Secretary. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Good morning. 

Mr. JOYCE. In your 2014 budget, I recognized there was yet another tax on the commercial aviation industry. As a matter of fact, 

there is $100 per aircraft departure tax, which would cost our Nation’s airlines roughly $1 billion annually. Passengers already pay 

more than their fair share of taxes, roughly 20 percent on every 

fare that is out there, and on a roundtrip fare. The Future of Aviation Advisory Committee that you convened in 2010 identified the 

raising aviation tax burden as an obstacle to the viability and global competitiveness of the airline industry, which lost over $50 billion and nearly one-third of its workforce over the past decade. Are 

you concerned about these Federal—the rising federal aviation tax 

burden? And, second, did your department conduct an economic impact analysis on the proposed departure tax? 

Secretary LAHOOD. This is a proposal that the administration 

has promoted for 4 years. It is a way to raise some income. And 

the answer to your question, whether we did an economic study, I 

don’t know that we did. But if we did, I will make it available to 

you.
161

Mr. JOYCE. That would be great. By chance, did you do—is there 

the same type of taxes on the railroad industry? 

Secretary LAHOOD. There is no tax like this on freight rail. 

Mr. JOYCE. Is there any other tax on any other industry similar 

to what you are doing to the aviation industry? 

Secretary LAHOOD. We will look. We have jurisdiction over a lot 

of transportation industries. Rather than just saying no, let me 

make sure I know what I am talking about. 

Mr. JOYCE. I appreciate that. Considering it is probably the 

safest form of travel in the Nation, we would certainly want to 

make it competitive, wouldn’t we? Or keep it competitive. 

Secretary LAHOOD. We have the safest aviation system in the 

world.

Mr. JOYCE. Secondly, sir, I apologize because I was late, but 

three hearings at one time make it a little rough to be here. 

On NextGen, did you discuss that when you gave your remarks? 

Secretary LAHOOD. No, I didn’t, other than to say that the President’s budget does continue our substantial resources for NextGen. 

We have made very good progress on NextGen in implementing it 

around the country, and we will continue to do that. The FAA bill 

provides significant resources over the next couple of years to really make progress. 

Mr. JOYCE. Better integrate those and develop processes for new 

performance-based navigation procedures and ensure stakeholders 

have needed information on NextGen to facilitate investment decisions like the GAO had requested, does DOT agree with those recommendations?

Secretary LAHOOD. I would have to go back and look and see 

what they said. 

Mr. JOYCE. Well, they said that the FAA should better integrate 

NextGen efforts, develop processes for selecting new performancebased navigation procedures and ensure that stakeholders have 

needed information on NextGen progress to facilitate investments. 

Secretary LAHOOD. I am sure we have done all of that. 

Mr. JOYCE. Do you think NextGen will be implemented within 

the proposing timeline? And what barriers would you foresee? 

Secretary LAHOOD. The one big barrier is sequestration. It is a 

big headache for us. It is going to eliminate some of the resources 

either for the people—I mean, we are furloughing FAA employees, 

and we have told them the furlough would be up to 11 days, some 

of those people are working on NextGen. So the process is going to 

be slowed down by that. 

Mr. JOYCE. But wouldn’t NextGen make the airline or make the 

whole issue more efficient, eliminate the need for towers if everything progressed the way you see it? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, we have never said that. What we have 

said about NextGen is that it will make flying safe, guiding planes 

in and out of airports more directly, save jet fuel, and relieve air 

congestion around major airports. 

Mr. JOYCE. And require major investments by not only the government but also by the airline industry. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Of course. And we have talked extensively 

with the airlines about that. 
162

Mr. JOYCE. So it would be fair to them to keep forward with this 

investment in their industry? Are we going to be able to keep 

ours—end of the bargain? 

Secretary LAHOOD. We are going to keep up. At FAA, safety is 

our number one priority, but NextGen implementation of NextGen 

is what people work on every day. And we have a good plan. 

Mr. JOYCE. I appreciate your work. Thank you very much. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Mr. JOYCE. I yield back. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Joyce. 

Complete the round here. Ms. Herrera Beutler. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess I am a little baffled to hear all this talk about concern 

over sequestration when you are supporting the most expensive 

light rail build in the country. And it is most expensive by over 

$100 million per mile. 

But since it looks like—safety is a huge issue for you all and for 

us, whether it is FAA or highways or transit. And you rightly 

pointed out this is a regional bridge, and safety is the issue. It is 

obviously not to get people or freight moved more quickly over the 

bridge; it is safety. 

Is the DOT still interested in this regional bridge and the safety 

of it if we locally choose to put a different form of mass transit on 

the bridge other than light rail? 

Secretary LAHOOD. We will work with stakeholders, Governors, 

Members of Congress, elected officials on projects where we think 

it is important for the region and for the safety of the region. 

But I want to be clear about this, and this is what I said when 

I was in you state recently: If the people that have been working 

on this for 10 years, and now there are other people in place that 

want to substitute their judgment for the people who put this plan 

in place—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. What people are you talking about? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Planners. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Planners. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Previous Governors, previous legislators, who 

have passed money in order for this project to go ahead. Communities.

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Well, not—my community recently voted 

down funding for it. 

Secretary LAHOOD. This is a regional project. I know that there 

is one community and one county out of multiple counties and multiple communities that doesn’t want this. I get that. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Well, let me clarify. We want you to invest and make this safer. We believe that is your responsibility. 

The problem is—— 

Secretary LAHOOD. If you don’t like the transit piece of this, so 

be it. Start over, though. That is what you have—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I am reclaiming my time on that, Mr. 

Secretary. Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Fine. Go ahead. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. This project has been redesigned two 

times in the last 3 years. Completely redesigned. You didn’t pull 

your funding then. So are you saying that the only way we are 
163

going to get the Federal support is if we have light rail? Is that 

the only way that you are interested? 

Secretary LAHOOD. If you take the light rail out of this project, 

you take a major component part out of it, you start the environmental impact statement over again. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. They didn’t start the environmental impact statement over when they redesigned it 2 years ago because 

they hadn’t designed it properly. Those people you talked about 

who have designed for it the last 10 years engineered a bridge that 

didn’t pass engineering muster. So there have been some necessary 

remodifications.

As it currently stands, the Coast Guard and the Army Corps of 

Engineers cannot permit this bridge as it is built because the light 

rail deck on the bottom makes it too short. There are companies 

in my region who cannot pass under the bridge if they build it as 

it is. So it is right now not even—it is not even permitted. 

So you are telling me the only way we are going to get this 

money if we build this bridge, that is too low with the right rail 

on it, that is the only way that you are interested? And you feel 

beholden to previous Governors over the citizens in this region? 

Secretary LAHOOD. We take our cues from the people that are in 

charge.

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Well, guess what? I am one of those now. 

And the folks in my region are saying we need to do better with 

their money. 

And I would argue that they would want us to consider freight 

mobility and people moving faster, not just the safety. Safety is 

huge; that is the Federal responsibility. But to ask them to pay 

tolls and taxes? This one community is going to pay the lion’s 

share?

And for you to say that there are previous working groups that 

we are beholden to, not the American taxpayer, that baffles me. 

Are you not concerned about the costs coming out of this community that has had double-digit unemployment over the last—— 

Secretary LAHOOD. I believe that, having been at a meeting with 

the Coast Guard, that the matter of the permit will be settled. I 

also know that there are now three businesses that are being 

talked to about their opportunities and the way to mitigate the 

business that they will lose, and I think those issues will be resolved.

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So, having met with the exact same folks 

several times, one of those businesses—one job for them is a $500 

million manufacturing job. So we are talking about a lot of jobs in 

our region, manufacturers, workers, on just one. There is no way 

to change or mitigate for them. And I know that you all have been 

talking to them, because they keep bringing it up. 

In that, are you saying that, back to the original point, the 

USDOT is only interested in this project if the mitigation—say the 

mitigation is we change the form of mass transit, we change it 

from light rail to bus rapid transit. Are you saying, then, that the 

DOT wouldn’t consider that mitigation, they wouldn’t then also be 

supportive of putting that form on the bridge and—— 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, I have never heard any discussions 

with any business people where they want to change the light rail. 
164

They are more interested in raising the height of the bridge, which 

I believe the Coast Guard is looking at now. 

And if you have an objection—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. My time has expired. 

Secretary LAHOOD. If you have an objection to the transit, and 

that is a major portion of this project, it changes the project. 

I don’t make this stuff up. This is the law. It is Federal law that 

was passed by Congress: Start over with another environmental 

impact statement that reflects what the project is going to look like 

and where the money is going to come from; hold public hearings 

so everybody knows. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. May I respond to that, or should I wait? 

Mr. LATHAM. Go ahead. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I guess they have already redesigned the 

project a couple of times without you all requiring them to start 

over. And I will provide for your office a list of areas where you 

all have circumvented or have at least skirted current law to move 

this forward. 

So I am very anxious to follow the law in this process, Mr. Secretary, and I would hope the Department is as well. 

Mr. LATHAM. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

We will start a new round, and we will start—— 

Mr. PASTOR. You want to start? 

Mr. LATHAM. All right. 

Mr. Secretary, your rail reauthorization proposal totals $6.6 billion in fiscal year 2014, which is obviously an extremely large increase compared to the fiscal year 2013 level of $1.54 billion. 

I found it concerning that it was proposing a shift in responsibility from the States and private industry to the Federal Government. For example, the Rail Authorization Act passed 5 years ago 

mandated that private rail firms install positive train control by 

December of 2015 on their own track. Your budget proposes that 

the Federal Government fund the positive train control on Amtrak 

routes and commuter rail lines. 

In addition, your budget proposal would transfer $85 million 

from the States for Amtrak State-supported routes to the Federal 

Government. Why are you proposing to shift the burden to the Federal Government, especially with our current budgetary concerns? 

Secretary LAHOOD. You mean on passenger rail? 

Mr. LATHAM. Yes. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Because it is—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Well, on—— 

Secretary LAHOOD. Go ahead. 

Mr. LATHAM. Positive train control, right. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Look this is a very expensive proposition, and 

it is also a mandate from Congress, and it is also a priority. 

Mr. LATHAM. Apparently, it has not been an issue of money. The 

private rail firms pay for this. And in August, the FRA’s report indicated the delays were associated with technical issues, such as 

spectrum, and not necessarily with any funding issue. 

So I don’t understand why we want to shift it to the Federal government rather than have the original deal, as far as who was 

going to pay for it. 
165

Secretary LAHOOD. We consider positive train control our number-one rail safety priority. 

Mr. LATHAM. It is huge. 

Secretary LAHOOD. And we believe that in order to implement it, 

we have to put some money where our mouth is. 

Mr. LATHAM. Are you saying it is a money issue rather than a 

technical issue? 

Secretary LAHOOD. I would say that the technical aspect of this 

is not as critical as how do you pay for it. 

Mr. LATHAM. That is not what the FRA is saying, though. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, the FRA is resolving the technical aspects of it with the railroads. 

Mr. LATHAM. Just to go back—— 

Secretary LAHOOD. If you are asking me which is more of a problem, it is the money part. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Again, that is not what they said. 

Going back to one of our favorite subjects, the stimulus bill pro- vided $8 billion for a new high-speed rail program, and the fiscal 

year 2010 bill provided another $2.5 billion for high-speed rail. After $10.5 billion and 5 years, do we have anything that looks 

like a nationwide investment in high-speed rail? And do we even 

have one corridor that has been noticeably improved, either passenger or freight, after the $10.5 billion of taxpayer investment? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, we have invested over $3 billion in the 

Northeast Corridor, and we have trains running there very regularly. Part of that investment is in infrastructure. Part of the investment is in States where Governors have wanted to increase 

service or fix up infrastructure. In Illinois, we have invested almost $3 billion, all of it in infrastructure to fix up the tracks. And I have ridden on those trains 

from Chicago—the train from Chicago to St. Louis, and I have seen 

where the money has been spent. 

In California, they will break ground on their high-speed rail ini- tiative this year. We have invested over $3 billion. The assembly 

there voted last summer to sell bonds upwards of between $6 billion and $8 billion as part of their investment. 

We have made a lot of progress in 4 short years—in 4 short 

years. It took us 50 years to build the interstate system. And the 

idea is that this is a major infrastructure program, and it is not 

going to be built overnight. 

Mr. LATHAM. Define ‘‘high-speed rail.’’ 

Secretary LAHOOD. Pardon me? 

Mr. LATHAM. Define ‘‘high-speed rail.’’ 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, the Congress defines ‘‘high-speed rail’’ 

as 110 miles per hour. That is the way they have defined it in legislation. California’s trains from San Francisco to San Diego will go 

200 miles an hour. In Illinois, the trains, once the infrastructure 

investments are completed, will go 110 miles per hour. 

It is going to be difficult to get trains consistently to go 110 miles 

per hour on the Northeast Corridor—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Well, they have to be electrified to be able to do the 

high speeds, right? 

Secretary LAHOOD. The California trains will be electrified. 

Mr. LATHAM. And not—— 
166

Secretary LAHOOD. The one in Illinois is not electrified. 

Mr. LATHAM. The initial operating segment in California will not 

be electrified. 

Secretary LAHOOD. The part in Fresno, the reason they are 

building it there is so they could put the catenary up and use it 

as a test area. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. 

Mr. Pastor. I see my time has expired. 

Mr. PASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As you know, the House has passed its budget. The Senate has 

its budget. You are now talking about the administration’s budget. 

But if there be a resolution of all three budgets maybe way down 

the road, and, as appropriators, after we finish the hearings, I am 

sure we will start the markups, and I would assume that the allocations that will be given out will be probably based on the Ryan 

budget that passed the House. 

And the question is, it is going to be hard to accommodate many 

of your requests that you have done in this budget. What would be 

your priorities in terms of now 4 years of Secretary of Transportation, what do you think would be the priorities that you think 

need to be continued as we go forward in appropriating the money 

for fiscal year 2014? 

Secretary LAHOOD. I think we will always have safety as our 

number-one priority in all modes of transportation, whether it is 

aviation or truck or cars. 

Our NHTSA organization is the top safety agency in the world. 

People come from all over the world to talk to our staff on safety. 

They are the best. They are the ones that rate cars. They are the 

ones that implemented, 20 years ago, Click It or Ticket, and now 

86 percent of us buckle up. They are the ones that work with Mothers Against Drunk Driving, and we have taken a lot of drunk drivers off the road. They are the ones that got States to pass .08. 

And so it will always be safety, Mr. Pastor. If you are asking in 

terms of programs—— 

Mr. PASTOR. In terms of programs. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Yeah, I mean, we have to keep our roads and 

bridges in a state of good repair. We do have a state-of-the-art 

interstate system, and we have to make sure that we maintain our 

interstate system and our bridges so that they are safe. 

But in terms of new initiatives, there is no secret around here 

about what the President’s vision is for the next generation of 

transportation, and that is high-speed rail. That is the President’s 

vision. He announced it 4 years ago. We have invested $12 billion. 

I have been to 18 countries looking at high-speed rail, and the 

common theme in every country is it required a national government investment, the way that we did with the interstate system. 

The only way we are going to have a high-speed rail program in 

America is if the Federal Government steps up and makes the investment.

We have invested a lot in other forms of transportation, like light 

rail in your State, streetcars in other communities, bus rapid transit in other communities. So we try to work with our partners, 

whether they be Governors or mayors or planners, to do what we 

can in communities to try and meet their needs. 
167

So safety number one; state of good repair for our roads and 

bridges, making sure that they are safe. But in terms of the next 

generation of transportation, it is high-speed rail. 

Mr. PASTOR. In that component that you describe as safety, is 

that NextGen? 

Secretary LAHOOD. NextGen is a big part of it. We have the 

safest aviation system in the world, and NextGen will only enhance 

that.

Mr. PASTOR. I heard you say that air traffic controllers were 

going to be furloughed maybe up to 11 days. And the input that 

air traffic controllers, or some air traffic controllers have in the development of NextGen is very important. And I am assuming that 

they are participating in its development. 

Secretary LAHOOD. They are participating. They are on all of our 

committees and all of our working groups, and they are an intimate part. They have to be. 

Mr. PASTOR. And we have been wanting to implement NextGen 

in the near future, but with sequestration in the way, what is going 

to happen to that timeline? 

Secretary LAHOOD. It is going to slow down our ability to meet 

the timetables that we have set for NextGen. 

Mr. PASTOR. Do you have any idea to what extent? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, we have told employees that they are 

going to be furloughed up to 11 days. We hope it is not 11 days, 

but it is up to 11 days. Some of these people are working on these 

projects, but I want to assure you and every member of the committee, safety will not be compromised. 

Mr. PASTOR. Well, talking about safety, it is the Homeland Security who made the decision. Has FAA or Secretary—well, Transportation taken the comment on bringing the changes in the homeland 

security on what can be brought on planes in terms of knives—— 

Secretary LAHOOD. That is not in my—— 

Mr. PASTOR. I understand, but—— 

Secretary LAHOOD. That is not in my portfolio. 

Mr. PASTOR. But safety on airlines, safety on different modes of 

transportation is. So does the Department have any comment and/ 

or—in ensuring that airlines are safe and that people that work in 

the industry are safe? 

Secretary LAHOOD. For all of the things that we have jurisdiction 

over, safety remains our number-one priority. 

[The information follows:] 

COMMENTS ON TSA WEAPONS INTERPRETIVE RULE

This is a significant change in TSA policy that may have profound impacts on the 

safety of flight crew members and passengers in aircraft cabins (as opposed to flight 

decks). As TSA is aware, the number of unruly passengers on planes has increased 

in recent years, and these unruly passengers pose serious risks to flight crew members and other passengers aboard planes. The issue has become such a serious concern internationally that the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) has 

taken the matter up. As I have said, safety is our top priority and I will encourage 

TSA to consider these risks in determining whether relaxing the definition of ‘‘weapon’’ is appropriate. At a minimum, TSA should provide a public discussion as to why 

this change would not increase the risk to flight crew members and passengers in 

aircraft cabins. 

Mr. PASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 
168

Mr. LATHAM. All right. And I will just—on that subject, on the 

NextGen, I think one of the biggest delays that has happened was 

the previous administration when they did not include the controllers in the whole development of NextGen. 

Mr. PASTOR. Well, they had the contract issue, so that was—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Well, that was, you know—the people running it 

should be involved in designing the—— 

Mr. PASTOR. I agree. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Yeah, but look, you all deserve credit for 

passing an FAA bill. I mean, we went without a bill for almost 6 

or 7 years. And now, with the passage of the bill, we have the resources to do it. 

Mr. LATHAM. All right. We digress. 

Mr. Dent. 

Mr. DENT. Thanks. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, just one final question. And thanks again for all 

the work you have done here at the Department the last few years. 

We will miss you. I guess this may be your last hearing. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Yes. 

Mr. DENT. And we will miss you. And thanks for the good work 

you have done. 

Just one quick question. In 2012, this subcommittee identified 

flaws in the NHTSA National Automotive Sampling System and 

provided funding to fully modernize the data collection system. The 

volume of crash data being input into the system is coming in at 

20 percent of the volume that was originally intended for the database. Additionally, the quality of the data has diminished. 

If properly implemented and maintained, this database is going 

to provide important data to support policy decisions and be an invaluable tool to all stakeholders by providing feedback on which 

technologies truly are improving highway safety and which ones 

are not working. 

Stakeholders in my district have voiced concern that NHTSA’s 

plans for modernization are not clearly defined. Could I please ask 

you to get back to me the status of the modernization? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Sure. 

Mr. DENT. That is a—— 

Mr. LAHOOD. Will do it. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you. And how much of the $25 million has 

been spent to date? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Okay. 

Mr. DENT. And then, how is NHTSA engaging with interested 

parties, suppliers, automakers, safety advocates, the medical community, research organizations, to ensure that we are leveraging 

both public and private resources to the greatest—— 

Mr. LAHOOD. Sure. 

Mr. DENT [continuing]. Extent possible? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Yep. Will do it. 

Mr. DENT. That is it. I mean, I don’t expect an answer right 

now——

Mr. LAHOOD. Yep. We will get back to you. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you so much. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Mr. DENT. And I will yield back. 
169

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Dent. 

Ms. Herrera Beutler. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

To follow up on the last part, when we were talking about the 

CRC and the bridge height issue and actions that DOT has taken 

to mitigate or hopefully mitigate, one of the things that I think is 

important for you all to consider—I know there are three businesses, and we will see what happens. My hope—this is the third 

or fourth, depending on who you talk to, largest river system in the 

country. It serves all the way up—obviously the Columbia River, 

all the way up into Idaho and all the four States surrounding. The 

ag industries use this river traffic. 

Is it wise to look at this project and say, okay, we are going to 

mitigate for these two or three businesses that are there now and 

we are not going to worry about future growth and capacity; as 

long as we can get these three businesses mitigated, moved over, 

we are not going to worry about the bridge height or the cap that 

it puts on the river? In terms of impeding the flow of commerce, 

is that of concern? 

Secretary LAHOOD. We would take our cues on that from the people that live in the area. I mean, the reason that we became aware 

of the height issue is when businesses came to us. And we recognized that it was a problem, and that is when the mitigation really 

began.

Look, if the leadership in the community, the business community and others say, other businesses are going to be inhibited or 

the future growth for the economy, we would certainly listen to 

that, of course. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Well, and I don’t know if we CC’ed you, 

but I know that we sent to the Coast Guard—the Members of Congress who live up the river in the different districts, sent a letter 

in saying just that, because there are public ports that go up beyond us. That is not my district or my area, but folks have raised 

that same concern. 

And just to clarify, come back to your interest in this project and 

the region, would DOT still be willing to fund a regional bridge 

that increases safety, or makes it safe in the event of a catastrophic 

earthquake or so on, if the transit portion were something other 

than light rail? 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, that decision hasn’t been made. And 

until the decision is made, we are operating under the assumption 

that the plan that is in place is the one that has been selected. 

And so I am not going to answer a hypothetical, given the fact 

that there are 10 years of planning and there is a project in place, 

and one State has already passed their local match and we are 

waiting to see what the other State does. If your State decides to 

do something different and doesn’t want to put up the match, then 

we will see where that takes us. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So, I guess, I am gauging your interest 

in the safety of the bridge irrespective of what mode of transit is 

used on it, not whether or not each State believes the bridge needs 

to be built or what they want to put in for it. 

Mr. LAHOOD. Well—— 
170

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. The controversy is over the mode of transit.

Secretary LAHOOD. Let me be clear. We like this project. This is 

the one multimodal project in the country of national significance. 

If this project is built, you will become a model maybe for the world 

but certainly for the country, where two States and a region that 

connects North America can build a multimodal bridge. We like 

this project. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So can I ask you to consider a few 

things? I realize it looks good on paper and it adds to the talking 

points, but the really important thing in my mind is, obviously you 

all have not drilled down into whether this even pencils. 

Did you know that we have to build parking garages in downtown Vancouver to meet the density requirements for light rail? Do 

you know that it does not pencil in our region? I mean, what you 

are bringing over from Portland is actually in the red, and part of 

the reason we are rejecting it is we don’t want to have to pay off 

their debts. 

If you were willing to truly make it a multimodal project that 

meets—and what you said, works with communities to meet their 

needs, you would be flexible and balanced and willing to help 

change this into—add bus rapid transit, add something that we can 

afford and that meets our needs. 

We literally have to build parking garages and assume people 

are going to drive to those parking garages for us to be legal to get 

the new-starts grant. That, to me, seems like you are really pounding a square peg into a round hole. Is that—— 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, the idea that we are not flexible is not 

accurate at all. When somebody came to us and said the bridge 

isn’t high enough and it is going to impact businesses, what did we 

do? We went to the Coast Guard. And—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. The Coast Guard has not permitted it. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Let me finish. The idea—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. But wait, wait, wait. 

Secretary LAHOOD. The idea that we are not flexible is not true. 

We have shown a lot of flexibility. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. You are telling me that unless we do the 

bridge as you like it, you won’t give me the hypothetical, yes, that 

you are still involved. 

Secretary LAHOOD. We are trying to mitigate with the businesses 

who asked for a higher bridge so they can accommodate their businesses. That sounds like a lot of flexibility to me. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

And I think we are going to adjourn the hearing here. 

I ask unanimous consent that Members are allowed to revise and 

extend their remarks. And if you would respond to written—— 

Secretary LAHOOD. I sure will. 

Mr. LATHAM [continuing]. Questions—— 

Mr. LAHOOD. Absolutely. 

Mr. LATHAM [continuing]. That they may have. 

On a personal note, and I hope Mr. Pastor would join me, thank 

you for your service at the Department. We hate to see you leave. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Thank you. 
171

Mr. LATHAM. We don’t always agree on every issue. You defend 

the indefensible pretty well sometimes. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Well, let me add my thanks to this committee 

for always having transportation as one of your top priorities. You 

have all been great to work with. Thank you. 

Mr. LATHAM. And you should be commended for your safety initiatives. Texting, the distracted-driver stuff is really a huge step 

forward.

Secretary LAHOOD. Thank you. Thank you. 

Mr. LATHAM. And I commend you for that. 

Secretary LAHOOD. Thank you. 

Mr. LATHAM. Unless there is anything else, Mr. Pastor, we will 

adjourn the hearing. 
172

QUESTIONs 

COMMITTEE 

FOR 

ON 

THER RECORD FROM THE HOUSE 

APPROPRIATIONS - FISCAL YEAR 2014 

BUDGET HEARING - April 16, 2013 

DEDICATED SHORT RANGE COMMUNICATIONS 

DOT has requested additional resources for studying interference issues related to dedicated 

short range communications that are used in connected vehicles. The study is necessary 

because of an FCC proposed rulemaking to allow unlicensed users to access the 5.9 GHz 

band of spectrum previously reserved for connected vehicles. It is my understanding that 

the FCC has proposed to allow unlicensed users access to spectrum reserved for connected 

vehicles. 

QUESTION: Are you concerned opening this spectrum to other broadband users could 

create interference with safety critical vehicle technologies? 

RESPONSE: Yes. DSRC was allocated for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) due 

to its key characteristics for mobile, active safety transportation applications. The 5.9 

GHz band at issue in this proceeding is crucial to ITS. Specifically, DSRC provides: 

• Reliable, secure communications among quickly-moving vehicles; 

• Fast communication speed for low latency; 

• Invulnerability to extreme weather; and 

• Tolerance of multi-path transmissions (to avoid self-interference). 

While the Department recognizes that spectrum is a scarce national resource and that it is 

important to find ways to expand wireless broadband capacity, the Department has 

concerns about the FCes proposal, as outlined in the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration's (NTIA) rcport titled "Evaluation of the 5350-5470 MHz 

and 5850-5925MHz Bands." DOT has invested significant resources in ITS research and 

development activities. given the technology's potential to save thousands of lives 

annually and to achieve other important national transportation goals. The Department 

has worked extensively for well over a decade, in partnership with a variety of 

stakeholders in the public and private sectors, domestically and internationally. to make 

broad deployment of these technologies in vehicles and infrastructure a reality in the near 

future. 

The NTIA report identified several risks to spcctrum sharing with Unlicensed National 

Information Infrastructure (U-NIl) devices in the 5.9 GHz band and suggested potential 

mitigation strategies. According to the report, additional analysis would be needed to 

detcrmine whether interference-free operation of the critical safety applications is 

possible ifU-NIl devices were granted access. 

QUESTION: What steps is the Department taking to ensure that the connected vehicle 

safety program is not unnecessarily delayed or derailed? 
173

RESPONSE: The Department continues to pursue the connected vehicle safety program 

as planned, while continuing to work with the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration (NTIA) on ongoing technical analyses of the DSRC band. 

DOT is in the midst of the world' s most comprehensive real-world test of the safety 

applications enabled by the DSRC technology, the Connected Vehicle Safety Pilot 

in Ann Arbor, Michigan. Data derived from this deployment of nearly 3,000 vehicles 

will provide critical support for thc National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 

(NHTSA) decisions on next steps concerning V2V technology. NHTSA will decide in 

2013 whethcr to begin rulcmaking action to rcquire the technology in all new light 

vehicles, to conduct additional research, or to combine regulatory action and further 

research. In 2014, NHTSA will makc such a decision concerning heavy vehicles. In 

making these decisions, the research on which they arc based relies on the 5.9 GHz 

spectrum being fully available, without any disruptive interferencc, to permit 

implementation of the technology's safety potcntial. 

Thc Department plans to remain activcly involvcd in the ongoing discussions and 

technical analyses relating to the FCC proceeding. DOT appreciates being fully included 

in the NTIA's study efforts in the 5.850-5.925 GHz band required by the Act, efforts that 

include fully considering DOT comments to thc NTIA's January 25, 2013 report, 

"'Evaluation of the 5350-5470 MHz and 5850-5925 MHz Bands Pursuant to Section 

6406(b) of the Middlc Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of2012." DOT appreciates 

NTIA's collaborative cfforts thus far, looks forward to working closely with NTIA on 

developing and implementing a work plan to assess all of the technical risks documented 

in the initial report, and stands ready to offer any assistance that it can to the NTIA or the 

FCC throughout the process. 

BUY AMERICA RULEMAKING 

QUESTION: I have been contacted by both public and private utility providers in my 

district with regard to the Buy America provisions is MAP-21. As I'm sure you know the 

bill sets an exemption level of 0.1 % for foreign sourced materials, which many in 

industry find to be extrcmely difficult with which to comply. We are anticipating a 

rulemaking out of FHW A sometime this year. When will that rulemaking be issued? Do 

you anticipate flexibility for certain sectors that may be disproportionately impacted? 

RESPONSE: The Dcpartment plans to issue a notice soon requesting comments on the 

continued need, in whole or in part, for the gencral waivers from Buy America 

(manufacturcd goods, pig iron, and ferry boats). The request for comments will include 

the continued need for FHWA's minimal use thrcshold that you mention. We will 

consider all comments received in assessing how to movc forward. 
174

MAP-21 amended the FHW A Buy America statute by broadening the application of Buy 

America to any contract eligible for Federal highway funding within the scope of the 

applicable NEPA document rcgardless of the contract's funding source. In response to 

the changes made by MAP-21, the Department issued guidance to clarify that the new 

Buy America statute includes any utility work covered by the NEP A document, even 

work not paid for with Federal-aid funds. 

TRUCK PARKING AVAILABILITY STUDY 

QUESTION: I want to thank the Department for moving forward to implement the study 

on truck parking availability that was required under MAP-21. This is an important priority 

for the trucking industry, but especially tor the men and women who make their living out 

on the road as long-haul truck drivers. These hard-working folks are under enough pressure, 

and taking steps to ensure they don't have to stress about where they can find a place to park 

to get their needed rcst will go a long way. Can you update the Subcommittee on those 

efforts? 

RESPONSE: Since the passage of MAP-21, the Department has been working with 

numerous stakeholders to seek input on framing the survey scope and questions. Based on 

stakeholder input, the Department expanded the scope of the survey population beyond the 

States to also survey law enforcement, commercial motor vehicle owners and operators, and 

parking facility owners. The Department plans to issue a Federal Register Notice soon to 

seek comments on the proposed survey structure. After we conduct the survey, the 

Department will analyze and develop the metrics to measure the adequacy of commercial 

motor vehicle parking facilities. The Department is on track to provide the survey results to 

the public on the US DOT website by the statutory deadline. 

PIPELINES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

The budget requests a significant increase for the Pipeline Safety 

and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. The $54.4 million or 27 percent 

increase above the FY 2013 level includes a request for 54 additional safety positions. 

QUESTION: Given that our nation has network of2.6 million miles of hazardous liquid 

and gas pipelines, how does the Pipeline Safety and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration leverage its state partners to ensure there is adequate oversight of the 

pipeline system? 

RESPONSE: The strength ofPHMSA's Federal/state partnerships directly impacts the 

integrity of our Nation's pipelines. Strong partnerships are critical to a successful 

national pipeline safety program. The Pipeline Safety Reform initiative expands the 

number of inspectors available to provide oversight to the system of pipelines and 

reinforces the partnership between the Federal and state entities responsible for 

enforcement procedures and the assurance of regulatory compliance for pipelines. The 
175

initiative will also support the standardization of all State Pipeline Safety grant programs 

in certain operational functions and make certain that state pipeline safety programs work 

together with Federal safety ovcrsight programs. 

The State Pipeline Safety Grant program supports up to 80 percent of a state's costs for 

personnel, equipment, and activities to carry out inspection and enforcement activities of 

intrastate pipeline facilities under a certification or agreement with the Secretary of 

Transportation or to act as the Secretary's agent with respect to interstate pipeline 

facilities. PHMSA and State inspectors train side by side and share lessons that have 

been learned throughout the different regions of the country. 

The discovery of shale gas reserves throughout the country is creating a surge in the 

development of new pipeline networks to transport gas to consumers. Much of this new 

infrastructure will fall within the safety oversight of state programs. PHMSA believes it 

is important to grow these state programs in order to address the issues of high risk, older 

pipelines; new shale gas-related developments and infrastructure; and the baseline needs 

of individual programs. 

PHMSA is also developing the National Pipeline Information Exchange to provide a 360 

degree view ofthe aging pipeline infrastructure and identify high risks. It will enable 

PHMSA to share and integrate data with its state partners. 

QUESTION: What assessment has been done on the state-of-good-repair needs of our 

nation's pipeline system? Provide an estimate of the capital backlog. 

RESPONSE: Generally, in spite of its gradually improving safety performance, some 

pipe has been in the ground for a long time. Over 50 percent of the Nation's pipelines 

were constructed in the 1950's and 1960's during the crcation ofthe interstate pipeline 

network built in response to the huge demand for energy in the thriving post-World War 

Il economy. Some pipelines were built even earlier. Approximately 3 percent of our gas 

distribution mains are made of cast or wrought iron and were built in the first half of the 

20th century. Over 12 percent of the Nation's cross-country gas transmission and 

hazardous liquid pipelines were built prior to the 1950's. 

PHMSA has made an inventory of cast iron pipelines publicly available on the Internet at 

http://opsweb.phrnsa.dot.gov/pipeline Jeplacement/cast. iron_inventory. asp. 

The inventory, which is sortable by State, reflects the amount of potentially high-risk 

pipe still in use. PHMSA has targeted cast iron pipe as one type of pipc that should be 

evaluated for accelerated repair, rehabilitation, or replacement. 

PHMSA does not build or rehabilitate pipelines and therefore cannot provide an estimate 

of the capital backlog. 

A VIA nON CALL CENTER 
176

The budget requests $7.5 million to establish a new aviation consumer call center. The 

budget requests $150,000 for two positions to oversee the contractor and do public 

outreach. The bulk of the funds ($7.35 million) are to award a contract to establish a call 

center. 

QUESTION: Does the $7.5 million request represent the full cost of the center for an 

entire year? Won't it take DOT a number of months to hire the internal staff and select a 

contractor? 

RESPONSE: The $7.5 million requcsted for the Office of General Counsel to establish a 

new Aviation Consumer Call Center required by the FAA Modernization and Reform Act 

represents the full cost for establishing the call center for an entire year and the cost for 

two positions funded for half a year. $7.35 million of the $7.5 million requested will be 

used for a contract to establish the hotline. Based on our review of call centers 

established by other Federal entities and an estimate received by a company that assists 

the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration with its call centers, wc view the 

$7.35 million for a contract to establish the Aviation Consumer Call Center as a 

conservative estimate. The remaining $150,000 of the $7.5 million requested will be 

used to fund for half a year two positions to oversee the contractor and do public 

outreach. It will take DOT several months to select a contractor. 

Funding the call center at the requested $7.5 million will enable the Department to enter 

into a full year contract with a vendor with option years. Doing so will result in cost 

savings to the government as the hourly rate that DOT will likely be charged for the 

hotline operators through a long term contract will be lower than the hourly rate for such 

operators through a short-term contract. Generally speaking, there tends to be a high 

turnover in call center operators. If the Department enters into a short term contract with 

a vendor, turnover will likely be even higher than the norm, as there will be less job 

security for the caiJ center operators. It is imperative that the Department be able to 

retain the call center operators as long as possible as we will be investing a great deal of 

time and resources up front in training each of the operators on the many consumer 

regulations that protect air travelers. If the operators are not adequately trained, then the 

assistance that they will be able to provide members of the public will be sub-standard. 

POLITICAL APPOINTMENT & DETAILS 

Section 182 of Public Law 112-55 limits the number of political and Presidential 

appointments to no more than 110. 

• Provide a table that lists all filled and vacant political and Presidential 

appointees by position name and mode as of May 1, 2013. 
177

,. , 

Office of the Secretarl{ 

Secretary Ray laHood 

Chief of Staff Joan DeBoer 

Deputy Chief of Staff Marlise Streitmatter 

White House Liaison Nate Turnbull 

Deputy Secretary John Porcari 

Counselor to the Dep. Secretary Joe Peraino 

Office of Scheduling and Advance 

Director of Scheduling and Advance Georgette Brammer 

rsct;eduler Vacant 

Special Asst to Scheduling Advance Ryan Lynch 

Special Asst to Scheduling Advance Amani Kancy 

----1-------

Policl{ 

Under Secretary for Transportation Policy Polly Trottenberg 

Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy Vacant 

Associate Director for Transportation Policy VinnWhite 

Senior Advisor for Accessible Transportation Richard Devylder 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy Amy Scarton 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy Beth Osborne 

Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs S'usan Kurland 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Bob Letteney 

Affairs 

Director of Public Engagement Bryna Helfer 

Deputy Director of Public Engagement Vacant 

Civil Rights 

Director, Office of Civil Rights Camille Hazeur 

Executive Secretariat 

Director, Executive Secretariat Carol Darr 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 

Director, Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Brandon Neal 

Utilization 

Chief Information Officer 

Chief Information Officer Richard McKinney 
178

Director of IT Strategy Francisco Reinoso 

Public Affairs 

Assistant to the Secretary and Director of Public Affairs Meghan Keck 

Deputy Director for Public Affairs Casey Hernandez 

Press Secretary Justin Nisly 

Deputy Press Secretary Susan Hendrick 

Associate Director of Speechwriting Ashley Nash-Hahn 

General Counsel 

General Counsel Katie Thomson (Acting) 

Deputy General Counsel James Cole 

Associate General Counsel Amy Tovar 

Special Assistant to the General Counsel Michael Hallock 

Assistant Secreta!:'.' for Budget and Programs 

Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs/CFO Sylvia Garcia (Acting) 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget Sylvia Garcia 

Senior Advisor for budget & Programs Blair Anderson 

Governmental Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs Dana Gresham 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs Patty Readinger 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs Joanna Liberman Turner 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs Amit Bose 

Director of Governmental Affairs Natalie Angelo 

Associate Director for Governmental Affairs Alex Friendly 

Associate Director for Governmental Affairs Maria Elena Juarez ---~-

Associate Director for Governmental Affairs Peter Gould 

Associate Director for Governmental Affairs Michael Daley 

FAA 

Administrator Michael Huerta 

Deputy Administrator Michael Whitaker 

Chief of Staff Sasha Johnson 

Chief Counsel Katie Thomson 

Assistant Administrator for Aviation Policy, International Julie Oettinger 

Affairs, and Environment 
179

Assistant Administrator for Communications Kristie Greco 

Associate Administrator for Airports Christa Fornaratto 

Assistant Administrator for Government & Industry Rod Hall 

Affairs 

Federal Highwall Administration ---

Administrator Victor Mendez 

Deputy Administrator Greg Nadeau 

Chief Counsel Fred Wagner 

Associate Administrator for Public Affairs Cathy St. Denis 

Associate Administrator for Policy and Government David Kim 

Affairs 

Federal Motor Carrier Safetll Administration 

Administrator Anne Ferro 

Deputy Administrator Bill Bronrott 

Director of Governmental Affairs John Drake 

Chief Counsel Scott Darling 

Director of Communications Marissa Padilla 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Administrator Joseph Szabo 

Deputy Administrator Karen Hedlund 

Chief Counsel Melissa Porter 

Director of Congressional Affairs Nathan Robinson 

Associate Administrator for Legislative Affairs & Kevin Thomson 

Communications 

Federal Transit Administration 

Administrator Peter Rogoff - Deputy Administrator Therese McMillan 

Associate Administrator for Communications and Brian Farber 

Legislative Affairs 

Chief Counsel Dorval Carter -

Maritime Administration 

Administrator Chip Jaenichen (Acting) 

Deputy Administrator Chip Jaenichen 

Director, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs Michael Novak 

Chief Counsel Franklin Parker 

National Highwall Traffic Safetll Administration 
180

Administrator David Strickland 

Deputy Administrator David Friedman 

Director of Governmental Affairs Chan lieu 

Director of Communications Nathan Naylor 

Chief Counsel Kevin Vincent 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safetll Administration 

Administrator Cynthia Quarterman 

Deputy Administrator Tim Butters 

Associate Administrator for Governmental, International, Jeannie Layson 

and Public Affairs. 

Chief Counsel Vanessa Allen 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration 

Administrator Vacant 

Deputy Administrator Greg Winfree 

Chief Counsel Ellen Partridge 

Director of Congressional and Public Affairs Jane Mellow 

Office of Administration 

Assistant Secretary for Administration. Brodi Fontenot 

St. Lawrence Seawall Development Corporation 

Administrator Vacant 

Office of the Inspector General 

Inspector General Calvin Scovel 

Describe temporary or permanent details between modes or offices (inside and 

outside of the DOT) of any political or Presidential appointee. 

RESPONSE: Per Sec. 182 of P.L. 112-55, no political appointees of the Department of 

Transportation have been detailed outside of DOT. 
181

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS 

QUESTION: As you know, MAP-21 expanded eligibility within the New Starts Program 

to allow improvements to existing transit systems that add capacity. These improvements 

to legacy systems can have as much or more impact on increasing ridership than some 

new extension projects. Five years ago, the Chicago Transit Authority expanded Brown 

Line platforms in my district, allowing the line to expand to 8 car trains, which carry 40 

percent more rides each day. That's 30,000 extra rides every day. More projects like this 

in Chicago could help expand ridership to meet future demand and reduce congestion on 

othcr over-crowded lines like the Red Line, which is also in my district. While other 

aspects ofMAP-21 have moved forward, we have not seen dedicated funding or guidance 

around the core capacity program, which could help cities across the country expand 

existing transit systems to mcet the needs of the future. 

a) Is the FTA supportive of the core capacity provisions? 

b) If so, what plans does FT A have to issue guidance or request funding for core 

capacity programs? 

RESPONSE: 

• FTA is very supportive of the new core capacity provisions of MAP-2L but notes 

that the Capital Investment Program authorized funding level was decreased in 

MAP-21 while the types of projects eligible for funding was expanded. Even 

though the overall Capital Investment Grant program is facing unprecedented 

funding constraints, FTA recommended $120 million for core capacity projects in 

the FY 2014 budget. We recognize this may be only a small fraction of what is 

needed to fund critical capacity expansion projects in our legacy transit systems. 

• FT A plans to issue proposed guidance for public comment later this year on how 

it may implement the new MAP-21 provisions for the Capital Investment Grant 

program, including the core capacity provisions. 

QUESTION: Moving major transit projects quickly through development, engineering, 

and construction will save transit agcncies, taxpayers, and transit riders a lot of money 

and time. MAP-21 encourages this common sense approach, funding a pilot program to 

expedite projects through alternative and innovative means, such as a Public-Private 

Partnership. Unfortunately, legislative language authorizing the pilot program allows 

only transit agencies in a "state of good repair" to be eligible. 

a) Is it true that most transit agencies in the US are not technically in a state of good 

repair, and this provision would thereby eliminate most, if not all major transit 

agencies from contention? 
182

b) If that's true, Chicago's core capacity projects would not be eligible for the pilot 

program. Would you support changing the law to waive that state of good repair 

requirement? 

RESPONSE: 

• In a study conducted in 20 10, FT A founds that 29 percent of all transit assets are 

in either poor or marginal condition. FTA's study found that 26 percent of rail 

assets and 41 percent of bus assets are in marginal or poor condition. In this same 

study, FT A found that a $78 billion investment (2008 constant dollars) would be 

required to address the national backlog of transit asset repairs and replacements. 

• FT A has supported increasing funding for state of good repair activities, including 

it as a key reauthorization proposal in its Budgct Requests to Congress. MAP-21 

now funds a formula grant program to help with the needs. 

• FT A would not conclude that most transit systems are not in a statc of good 

repair, since the meaning of the phrase has not yet been clearly defined. 

However, it is clear therc are significant state of good repair funding needs 

around the country, particularly at the largest and oldest transit systems. 

• FT A notes that the provisions in MAP-21 for the Pilot Program for Expedited 

Project Delivery allow only three projects to be selectcd, but no separate funding 

is identified. Rather, the projects selected must compete for the limited Capital 

Investment Grant Program funding. 

• FT A believes it is crucial to maintain existing systems and assets before 

considering expansions, so we are supportive of the provision in the pilot program 

requiring a certification that the existing system is in a state of good repair. 

POSITIVE TRAIN CONTROL 

QUESTION: The U.S. Rail Safety Improvement Act of2008 mandated the 

implementation of positive train control (PTC) technology across thc U.S. rail network by 

2015. While the railroad industry has invested significant resources to meeting the 

statutory deadline, the GAO, Federal Railroad Administration. and CRS have all 

published reports stating that a majority of railroads will not be able to fully implement 

PTC by the deadline. 

Would you support an extension of the 2015 deadline to ensure that both freight and 

commuter rail have enough time to implement this expensive and complicated mandate? 
183

RESPONSE: FRA continues to support national deployment of Positive Train Control 

(PTC) to improve the safety, security, and efficiency of freight, intercity passenger rail, 

and commuter rail services. 

FRA released a comprehensive report on PTC deployment in August, 2012. In it, FRA 

found that the majority of railroads will not be able to complete PTC implementation by 

the December 31, 2015 deadline. Partial deployment can likely be achieved. However, 

that depends on the successful resolution of the current issues including availability of 

communications spectrum. radio interoperability. in addition to any potential issues 

discovered during the implementation process. 

FRA made the following recommendations in its August report: 

• If Congress were to consider extending the PTC implementation deadline 

it should take into account the extent each railroad has demonstrated due 

diligence in its efforts to implement PTC. 

• FRA should be allowed to make provisional certification ofPTC systems. 

• Any revisions to a PTC implementation plan should be subject to FRA 

approval with sufficient time for FRA review. 

• FRA should be allowed to approve the use of alternative methods of 

protection in lieu of PTC. 

QUESTION: In the Chicago region, approximately 300,000 riders rely on METRA each 

and every weekday to get to work and get back home. METRA faces challenging 

budgets. The Positive Train Control (PTC) mandate will cost the agency at least $214 

million. This is a very expensive proposition for a public agency with an annual capital 

budget of roughly $140 million. In order to meet the mandate, METRA would have to 

divert funding from critical capital investments, such as state of good repair priorities and 

important station rehabilitation projects that are so critical to local communities and 

METRA commuters. Most other commuter railroads in this country face the same 

problem. I am encouraged that the Administration has recognized this issue and included 

funding for PTC in the Rail Service Improvement Program, funded through a yet to exist 

Transportation Trust Fund, but I worry that this is not enough. 

Has the Department considered other ways to help mitigate the significant costs that 

commuter railroads around the country are facing as a result of the PTC mandate? 

RESPONSE: As you mentioned, FRA recognizes that commuter rail operators face tight 

budgets making it difficult for them to fund PTC. This is why FRA has sct aside funds 
184

for PTC implementation in our FY 2014 budget. However because PTC is 

Congressionally mandated, FRA has worked within its authority to limit the cost of PTC 

implementation through its provisions for exceptions to thc requirements for installation 

along certain track segments. Regarding mitigating costs, commuter railroads would 

likely benefit from the recommended updates to FRA's PTC implementation authorities, 

outlined in the answer to the previous question. 

QUESTION: In 2008, the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee recognized 

this problem and authorized the FRA to administer the Railroad Safety Technology Grant 

Program, which can be used to support PTe projects at $50 million per year. However, to 

date, Congress has only appropriated $50 million in FY 2010. Can you talk about the 

Department's decision not to include that already authorized amount in this year's budget 

proposal? 

RESPONSE: FRA recognizes that funding is a major obstacle to PTC implementation 

for Amtrak and commuter railroads. Consequently, in its FY 2014 Budget, FRA has set 

aside significant resources for this activity. Under the proposed National High 

Perfonnance Rail System program, FRA will provide funds to Amtrak and to transit 

commuter rail operators to install PTe systems. Specifically, PTC implementation is an 

eligible grant activity for Amtrak under the new $925 million National Assets Program 

and for commuter railroads under the new $3.25 billion Passenger Corridors program. 
(185)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 17, 2013. 

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

WITNESS

HON. SHAUN DONOVAN, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. LATHAM. The hearing will come to order. I want to welcome 

Secretary Donovan here this morning. Thank you for your testimony and for your continued service at HUD, your competence and 

hard work at the Department continues to be very much appreciated. I really appreciate the conversations that we have. It is 

very, very important to try to reach the goals that we all have in 

mind.

Consideration of the fiscal year 2014 request must be put in 

proper context, as anomalies like FHA receipts and sequester make 

fair comparisons very challenging. Gross spending is higher in this 

request than has been previously enacted. While I understand 

some increases are due to the rising cost of HUD rental assistance, 

the increases are not entirely explained by HUD’s existing liabilities.

The request adds nearly a billion dollars to new initiatives, new 

demonstration programs, and large increases to existing programs. 

Just to cite a few examples, $200 million is requested for a Neighborhood Stabilization Initiative, a narrowly targeted program not 

funded by this Subcommittee in recent years. Also, Choice Neighborhoods, another narrowly targeted program, is quadrupled to 

$400 million in the request. These increases are particularly puzzling in the context of a request that also proposes to cut core state 

and local partnerships like CDGB and HOME. 

Looking beyond funding levels, I am deeply concerned by the lack 

of a comprehensive reform proposal in the budget. Neither the authorizing Committees nor the administration appear to be committed to leading the way on this issue. While I appreciate the inclusion of some legislative savings ideas, cherry-picking authorizing 

provisions just to accommodate more spending elsewhere is no substitute for genuine leadership on reform. Without something comprehensive, it will only get more and more difficult to keep pace 

with the growing cost of assisting vulnerable households and forging pathways to self-sufficiency. 

Mr. Secretary, I think we can both agree that even in this fiscal 

environment, protecting households currently served by HUD 

should be a top priority. However, we must also fulfill a duty to the 

American taxpayer to get serious about deficit reduction. HUD’s request goes exactly in the wrong direction on deficit spending and 

appears out of touch with fiscal reality. This Subcommittee will 

take a hard, line-by-line look at what can be accommodated in the 
186

current environment, particularly among the grant and demonstration programs in this request that have nothing to do with meeting 

current HUD commitments. 

I am looking forward to an open and productive discussion with 

you as we continue through the process, and I thank you again for 

your hard work at the Department. I think we all have a lot of 

questions and ground to cover today, so with that I will yield to my 

distinguished ranking member, Mr. Pastor, for his opening remarks.

Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. PASTOR. Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. And 

thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the recognition. I also want to welcome Secretary Donovan this morning. 

Mr. Secretary, you have had a busy few months spearheading 

the Federal government’s recovery efforts from Hurricane Sandy, 

an issue I know that is vitally important to my ranking member, 

Ms. Lowey. 

When we finished our work on the fiscal year 2013 appropriation 

bill last month, we tried to preserve the housing safety net for our 

nation’s most vulnerable populations. However, cuts due to sequestration undermine our aim. I am particularly concerned that many 

public housing authorities feel that these lower funding levels are 

insufficient to keep every person who we housed last year in a 

home this year. 

President Obama has submitted a funding request that protects 

housing for vulnerable populations that we house. There are increases for the Section 8 program, and a modest increase for the 

public housing program. While I support these increases, I am concerned that the growth in these programs may come at the detriment of the rest of the program in the Department. 

I look forward to your testimony this morning. And Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I yield back. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Pastor. I see the Ranking Member 

of the Full Committee is here. If you have an opening statement, 

Ms. Lowey, please go ahead. 

Ms. LOWEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. 

Ranking Member. And I would like to thank you for your efforts 

on these very important issues. And I join you in welcoming Secretary Donovan. 

First, Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for your assistance 

with designating Westchester County a most-impacted and distressed county for the first allocation of Sandy Relief funds from 

the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Relief Program. 

I appreciate your Department honoring my request and that of 

Governor Cuomo and some of my House and Senate colleagues, to 

take a second look at the designation. As I review your budget request, I am pleased that the Department is prioritizing funding to 

maintain current levels of rental and homeless assistance. 

While our economy is in recovery, some of our fellow citizens are 

being left behind. The president’s budget should honor our commitment to assisting their recovery as well. However, like a number 

of my colleagues, I am concerned about the long-term health of the 

Department in the face of the sequester. For example, through its 

housing assistance programs, HUD serves millions of low-income 
187

seniors and disabled individuals. However, like other low-income 

programs, such as SNAP, these housing programs are not protected 

from the sequester. As you know, HUD’s own estimates project that 

125,000 individuals and families will lose voucher assistance under 

sequestration, likely increasing homelessness for these populations. 

Additionally, state and local units of government rely on CDGB to 

help with vital investments and economic revitalization, affordable 

housing, and infrastructure. I fear they will soon have to manage 

with less support in order for the Federal government to meets its 

obligations to our most vulnerable citizens. 

Mr. Secretary, I do not envy the task before you. I hope that your 

testimony today will provide reassurance about the difficult choices 

ahead for HUD. I look forward to working with my colleagues on 

the Committee and the secretary to continue to review the president’s budget request to ensure that we adequately fund the initiatives that will aid our citizens who are most in need while supporting economic development and job creation throughout the 

country.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Ms. Lowey. 

After the secretary, we will proceed with five-minute rounds in 

standard order this morning. With that, Mr. Secretary, I invite you 

to present your opening statement. Your full statement will be in 

the record. You are recognized for five minutes. 

SECRETARY DONOVAN’S OPENING STATEMENT

Secretary DONOVAN. Thank you, Chairman Latham, Ranking 

Member Pastor, Ranking Member Lowey, members of the Committee.

HOUSING AND COMMUNITIES

Today I would like to discuss how HUD’s fiscal year 2014 budget 

proposal will help grow our economy from the middle class out by 

supporting the ongoing recovery in our housing market and creating ladders of opportunity in communities across the country. As 

the president said, our economy is strongest when we expand opportunity and reward the hard work of everyone. HUD’s budget 

would do this by supporting the creation and retention of 620,000 

jobs.

We followed four main principles in creating the 2014 budget. 

The first was to continue support for the resurgent housing market 

while encouraging the return of private capital and rebalancing the 

nation’s housing finance system. Today the housing market is playing a key role in our economic recovery. Rising home values lifted 

1.7 million families back above water and home equity grew by 

more than $1.6 trillion in 2012. 

FHA

FHA continues to play an important role in this effort, ensuring 

nearly 1.2 million single-family mortgages in 2012. However, due 

to the loans insured during the economic crisis, the fiscal year 2014 

budget projects that FHA will need $943 million in support from 

the Treasury. As you know, any decision to draw from the Treasury 
188

depends on the actual performance of the fund during the current 

fiscal year. We have taken aggressive steps to protect the fund and 

are already seeing strong results, even with stress from the troubled reverse mortgage program and the now banned seller-assisted 

down payment programs. In fact, while the gross budget authority 

HUD requests in fiscal year 2014 is $47.6 billion, a 7 percent increase over the fiscal year 2012 enacted level, offsetting receipts 

from FHA and Ginnie Mae totaling $14.5 billion bring the cost to 

the taxpayer to only $33.1 billion, almost 12 percent below the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. Despite this progress we continue to 

take responsible administrative action, and the fiscal year 2014 

budget calls on Congress to further assist in stabilizing the fund. 

IMPROVING HUD’S HOUSING PROGRAMS

The second principle we used in developing our budget, as you 

mentioned, Mr. Chairman, was to protect current residents. Currently, there are 5.4 million families who live in HUD-assisted 

housing, a number we have increased by more than 219,000 over 

the last three years through better management. These households 

earn just $12,500 a year on average, and nearly two-thirds have a 

member who is elderly or disabled. Fully funding renewals of this 

assistance consumes 84 percent of our proposed budget just to keep 

current residents in their homes, support homelessness prevention 

programs, and provide basic maintenance to public housing. 

BUILDING ON EXISTING PARTNERSHIPS

The third principle we followed was to build on existing partnerships, helping to create ladders of opportunity while embracing 

smart, effective, efficient government. As the president said in his 

state of the union address, in too many hard-hit communities the 

life chances of a child are determined not by her talents but by her 

ZIP code. The promise zones proposed by the president expand investments by HUD, the Departments of Education and Justice, and 

other agencies, while coordinating and streamlining this work to 

maximize our impact and reduce cost. The $400 million we have requested for our Choice Neighborhoods program represents a significant increase that will allow us to transform public and assisted 

housing in our hardest hit neighborhoods and ensure our children 

are prepared for the 21st century economy. 

Building on the success of three rounds of Neighborhood Stabilization Program funding, a $200 million competitive Neighborhood Stabilization Initiative within our Community Development 

Block Grant program will address the needs of neighborhoods that 

continue to suffer the negative effects of abandonment and foreclosure of privately-owned housing. 

We have also proposed reorganizing the Office of Sustainable 

Housing and Communities and relocating it within the Community 

Planning and Development Office as a direct result of feedback 

from this Committee. This new Office of Economic Resilience would 

offer 75 million in integrated planning and investment grants that 

support local investments in infrastructure and other development 

to create jobs and build diverse resilient economies. 
189

REDUCING REGULATORY BARRIERS

The final principle we used in creating this budget was to increase sufficiency, reduce regulatory burdens, and provide flexibility to our partners, allowing them to better manage resources. 

I look forward to working with Congress to enact the Section 8 

reforms proposed in our budget which would save approximately 

$2.8 billion over the next five years and streamline outdated statutes governing our public and assisted housing. Expanding initiatives like the Rental Assistance Demonstration and the Moving to 

Work program will allow more public housing authorities the flexibility to pilot innovative strategies that will better serve residents 

and save taxpayers money. 

This budget also continues the Transformation Initiative, allowing us to propose increased investment in programs we know work 

and stop funding the ones that do not. And to hold our partners 

accountable for the funding they receive. Perhaps the best example 

of this approach is found in Opening Doors, the administration’s 

plan to end homelessness, which has dramatically reduced chronic 

and veterans’ homelessness over the last two years. Because we 

know these programs save lives as well as taxpayer dollars, our 

budget proposes 10,000 new HUD VASH vouchers, and a significant increase in our homelessness assistance grants. 

Unfortunately, sequestration seriously threatens our ability to 

serve families, communities, and veterans across the nation with 

hundreds of thousands likely to lose the assistance we have worked 

so hard to preserve. While we are attempting to reduce these impacts, there is simply no way to prevent serious damage this year 

or the resulting consequences for fiscal year 2014 unless sequestration is reversed with a Balanced Deficit Reduction Plan proposed 

by the president. 

I look forward to working with you, both on the fiscal year 2014 

budget and on reversing the harmful cuts imposed by sequestration. Thanks for the opportunity to testify today. I look forward to 

your questions. 

Mr. LATHAM. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

As you mentioned, HUD’s budget anticipates it will use its permanent, indefinite authority to access $943 million from the Treasury to reserve against future losses in the FHA portfolio. And while 

HUD is taking steps to stabilize the broader portfolio, including 

five premium increases, little has been done to stabilize the HECM 

program, which is projecting losses and entirely offsets any surplus 

reserves from the forward mortgage market. 

FHA REFORMS

In the narrative portion of the budget, you mention additional 

steps to shore up your losses, but these fall under the authorizers’ 

jurisdiction. These reforms would decrease the chances of having to 

use the permanent indefinite authority in the future. Can you tell 

us what progress you have made with the authorizers as far as 

these reforms to strengthen FHA programs and to limit the need 

for these funds? 

Secretary DONOVAN. Absolutely. First of all, I think you make a 

very important point, that if you look at the new business that we 
190

are making and even the entire book of the standard single-family 

programs and you were to look separately at the reverse mortgage 

program, the fund would actually be in a $4 billion positive position rather than in the negative $940 million. So the reverse mortgage program alone is a critical element of what we need to do. 

We did take steps a few years ago to create a new option under 

the reverse mortgage program called the Saver. For a range of reasons I will not bore you with today, that program did not have as 

much take-up as we expected. Many of these were capital markets 

related, but the bottom-line was that forced us to take the step of 

actually consolidating, so essentially stopping the full draw program that was causing the most damage, and not allow any new 

loans under that program pending broader reforms. 

And so I think the most critical authority we are asking for from 

the authorizers is instead of having to go through the full notice 

and comment rulemaking process which might take 18 months or 

so, to allow us through Mortgage E-Letter to make important reforms that I think we broadly agree on to the reverse mortgage 

program quickly. If we are not able to do that this year, we will 

have to take more dramatic steps on pricing and other things that 

will both protect the fund but I also fear could have negative impacts on seniors. So it is critical that we get this done before the 

end of the fiscal year. 

I have reached out and we are working with the authorizers. As 

you know, we got a vote that was broadly bipartisan on a FHA reform bill last year. I am hopeful that we can have the same 

progress in the House, but I have already reached out to Chairman 

Hensarling, to the ranking member, to make sure that we are moving quickly on that. And certainly, we are actively involved in discussions right now. 

The other changes that are most important would—because we 

are making significant money on new loans, is to help us better collect and make better returns on older loans that are causing so 

much of the damage. So particularly increasing our enforcement 

authorities is a critical step that we need to take, and we do have 

four specific proposals in the budget on enhancing our ability to increase returns on those older loans. 

AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION

Mr. LATHAM. Do they require authorizers to act on those? 

Secretary DONOVAN. Those four, yes, they would. But I will say 

there are many steps that we can and are taking, short of getting 

authorizing legislation, we have instituted loan sales and ramped 

them up dramatically, which has increased our returns substantially on those older loans. It is a more efficient way to dispose of 

certain loans. We are in the process of issuing guidance on short 

sales that will help both minimize losses to the funds and allow 

families to move on if they are not going to be able to stay in their 

homes. And so there are a set of other steps we can and are taking, 

but we do believe that these six reforms—two on HECM, four on 

Enforcement—are absolutely critical to get done. And I pledge to 

you we will work as hard as we can to get those done with the authorizers.
191

Mr. LATHAM. Have you made formal legislative proposals to the 

authorizers?

Secretary DONOVAN. We have. 

Mr. LATHAM. In language? 

Secretary DONOVAN. In language. I would say one of my concerns 

is that there is debate about the future of the housing finance system, as there should be. We believe strongly there ought to be reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And there ought to be reforms to FHA that are done in concert with that in terms of our 

loan limits and other steps. But I think it is very important that 

we move quickly on these steps to shore up the fund and not delay 

those with the broader legislation that might move on housing finance reform. So we are urging all of your colleagues on the authorizing side to help us move quickly on FHA reform that helps 

the fund and leave some of the broader mission questions for legislation that can be done in concert with changes to Fannie and 

Freddie.

Mr. LATHAM. I see my time has expired. Thank you. 

Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. PASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like some clarification on the CDBG and the Neighborhood Stabilization Initiative. While the overall number for the 

CDBG grant program is about the same as last year’s budget request, the funding request for the formula grant to cities, counties, 

and states is at the lowest level since 1976. This lower level is due 

to the creation of the $20 million Neighborhood Stabilization Initiative within the CDBG program that you have proposed. 

I believe it was two years ago that you and I visited a number 

of—at least several neighborhoods that had the Neighborhood Stabilization Program and very successful, and we saw families getting the keys to homes that had been rehabbed, and obviously, the 

families had been counseled and they qualified and they were in 

new homes that were lost when we had the housing problems. 

Now, how is this program, this new initiative different than the 

housing program that we saw that was initiated in 2008? 

NEIGHBORHOOD STABILIZATION INITIATIVE

Secretary DONOVAN. So this program builds on the success of 

Neighborhood Stabilization. We do not consider it a new initiative 

because we have now, through $7 billion, three rounds of Neighborhood Stabilization, which are effectively at an end now. We have 

seen over 100,000 properties that are renovated or rebuilt or demolished, frankly, where that is the best outcome, and we have created about 85,000 jobs. We have also—and this is why we felt this 

was an important proposal—what we have seen is not just the job 

creation that you might traditionally get through CDBG, we have 

also seen in 75 percent of the neighborhoods where we have invested this money, vacancy rates are down and home prices are rising relative to surrounding communities. And what does that 

mean? You not only get the jobs directly from construction, but you 

get—because homeowners are doing better in those neighborhoods, 

increased consumer spending, stronger economies surrounding that 

for other reasons as well. 
192

So we are in the position, and this goes back to—if we are going 

to prioritize the 84 percent of the money in the HUD budget to 

keep existing families in their homes, the pressure on our other 

programs is going to be intense. We are going to have to make very 

difficult decisions. Do I believe that CDBG and HOME should be 

increased from their current levels? Absolutely. But I also felt 

when we were looking at having to make difficult choices specifically on CDBG, we felt $200 million directed to this Neighborhood 

Stabilization Initiative would get us, first, better acceleration of the 

housing recovery that we are seeing, and also more job creation 

than we would by keeping that $200 million just in the CDBG formula program. 

So it is a difficult decision. I understand the concerns that you 

and the chairman express about this. And I would love to be able 

to do both, but when we are making difficult choices we felt this 

$200 million, knowing what we now know about the success of 

Neighborhood Stabilization, is a good investment and builds on it. 

The last thing I would just say, we are trying to leverage the 

power of our 108 loans in CDBG. That is why we have put them 

together. As you know, 108 is a program to leverage private capital 

that can be brought in through a loan guarantee in CDBG. We believe that the $200 million plus the power—we are proposing to 

double 108 capacity in CDBG—could bring not just $200 million 

but potentially billions of dollars in private capital to leverage that 

that could further increase the job creation through this initiative. 

Mr. PASTOR. Well, CDBG is very popular with local governments, 

as you well know. 

Secretary DONOVAN. For good reason. I ran the largest CDBG 

program in the country before coming here. 

Mr. PASTOR. So how do you envision this neighborhood initiative? 

Is it going to be part of the decision-making for the mayors and 

county commissioners and the governors in some cases to—as they 

consider the blight in their community, that they will look at this 

imitative? Because right now they can address some of these issues 

with the CDBG money as it comes into the local jurisdictions. I 

mean, how is it going to work with the local politicians in making 

CDBG decisions? 

COMPETITIVE FUNDING

Secretary DONOVAN. So we would expect to run a competition 

that would be targeted at the places that have the greatest need. 

As you know from your own district, certain parts of the country 

were hit harder than others, and while we have made great 

progress in the housing market, we still have a series of neighborhoods and communities around the country that are really still suffering from the housing crisis. And so we would run a competition. 

We would target it to those places. Again, I understand that there 

is concern about not having as much CDBG formula money, but we 

believe that by targeting that $200 million to the places that are 

still hurting the most, requiring through a competition that that be 

leveraged substantially with private funds, that we could end up 

getting more job creation and more acceleration of our housing recovery through using that $200 million for Neighborhood Stabilization.
193

Mr. PASTOR. Jim, just a short question, if I may. 

Have you determined already the 20 competitive sites that you 

would direct this money to? 

Secretary DONOVAN. We have not. And even the idea that it 

would be 20 is not set at this point. We would obviously be willing 

to work closely with the Committee to try to shape this in terms 

of eligibility and need. With Neighborhood Stabilization written in 

the legislation was a series of criteria for targeting that money, so 

we would love to work with you on how exactly to target it. 

Mr. PASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. Do you have any communities in mind, Mr. Pastor? 

Mr. PASTOR. Well, there are about three or four. 

Mr. LATHAM. Ms. Granger. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 

I would like to talk to you about the Sustainable Community Investment grant program. One of my constituents in North Texas, 

the North Central Texas Council of Governments, is currently 

using a grant award to address regional development planning 

issues, especially as they relate to Fort Worth and Tarrant County. 

The Livable Military Communities project will help develop a comprehensive plan for local planning issues. We have a large base 

that is based in a small city, and they do not have the staff and 

the funds to do it effectively. So I would like to know how this type 

of work will be continued beyond the grants that were issued in the 

previous year, particularly in areas that did not receive a Sustainable Community grant. And it is my understanding this program 

will include grant funding for implementation costs related to recommendations by the grant recipients. What criteria will HUD be 

using in prioritizing communities that will undertake in these 

planning efforts? 

REGIONAL PLANNING ISSUES

Secretary DONOVAN. So first of all, I would just say we are very 

encouraged by the work that is being done in your district on this. 

It is exactly the kind of regional focus we like to see. And the idea 

that it is focused on a local issue of great importance—not just to 

you, to the community—but to make the community a better place 

for military families to allow them not just to lower their housing 

costs but also to lower their transportation costs and create neighborhoods that are going to provide more jobs for the community. So 

I think it is a great example of what we are trying to achieve with 

this effort. 

Specifically, what we are proposing is $75 million. And one of the 

changes we are proposing this year based on feedback from the 

Committee is to, going forward, focus more on requiring implementation strategies so that we know these plans are not going to sit 

on a shelf but they are actually going to move toward implementation. Obviously, if we do not get funding—the last two years we 

have not gotten funding for these planning grants—we are not 

going to be able to do that going forward. So obviously getting that 

done. We also are going to require a greater focus on job creation 

and economic development going forward. I think the example in 

your district has done that but we want to make sure that all of 

the grants are maximizing job creation. 
194

The other thing I would say that is important here specifically 

for your community, one of the things that we are working on is 

a preferred status for communities that have won these planning 

and implementation grants, to be able to get access to the funding 

they need for implementation. In other words, if what is necessary 

to carry this out would be infrastructure investment, whether it is 

through bus, rapid transit, road repairs or construction, we would 

create a preference in the Transportation Department, HUD, and 

other funding programs so that this grantee would be able to come 

in and get a head start, if you will, on the implementation funding 

that is necessary. That is something we have already started in 

HUD programs, and we will be rolling out soon with the Department of Transportation, EPA, and other infrastructure agencies, 

that effort. 

Ms. GRANGER. Good. Because you are right. They will just sit on 

a shelf and not be used. 

Let me ask another question about this program. In your agency 

request you have the Sustainable Communities Investment program relocated to the Office of Economic Resilience. Can you explain the reasoning for the move? 

SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES INVESTMENT PROGRAM

Secretary DONOVAN. This is directly based on conversations that 

we have had with this Committee. One of the concerns that we 

heard is how does this really work with the main block grant programs? And so one of the things we are requiring of grantees is 

that they have some skin in the game by bringing not just their 

community development block grant and home funding, but also 

bringing private capital. We also felt that by bringing these together, frankly, we would create a more efficient organizational 

structure and potentially save dollars within HUD’s budget by consolidating the program. The change in name is really focused on 

this emphasis on job creation; that every one of these plans has to 

demonstrate clearly where the job creation and the savings are 

that it is producing. 

Ms. GRANGER. Good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Ms. Granger. 

Ms. Lowey. 

Ms. LOWEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Under the supplemental, grantees must abide by a 24-month expenditure deadline for federal grants on critical recovery and 

Mezoian C projects. Considering the depletion of resources across 

the executive branch because of the sequester and the environmental reviews and regulatory requirements that must be met before construction begins, I am extremely concerned that some of the 

big infrastructure projects, such as housing development, subway 

repairs, water treatment plants, will not be built or will be built 

poorly to meet the deadline. 

Now, you are the leader of the Sandy Task Force. I would be interested to know if you are planning to work with OMB to grant 

waivers since this is an issue shared by a number of departments. 

CDBG funds are also subject to this 24-month expenditure deadline. How are you going to work with grantees to structure the re-
195

lease of CDBG funds so that projects which will take longer than 

two years will be undertaken by the grantee? And can you deal 

with this issue by granting waivers or is congressional action necessary to fully resolve this issue? But it is a real problem that has 

been brought to my attention. 

24-MONTH EXPENDITURE DEADLINE

Secretary DONOVAN. So first of all, the short answer is yes, we 

have the authority to grant waivers, and we do not need Congress 

to further act to be able to do that. What I would say overall, and 

this is shaped very much by my experience on the Gulf Coast. As 

you know, HUD has been deeply involved in the recovery of the 

Gulf Coast from Katrina and from other hurricanes—Ike, Gustav, 

et cetera. And you know, frankly, in too many cases we have seen 

that the money has not moved quickly enough to help people recover, and there has not been sufficient urgency and discipline imposed by the Federal government on doing that. 

So we felt strongly, and we worked with Congress. For the first 

time ever there is this 24-month requirement in there, and I was 

a supporter of that. And we have seen through our experience in 

the Recovery Act that by setting deadlines, holding grantees’ feet 

to the fire, we actually do get better performance. And most importantly, quickly help to families and communities. 

Having said that, you are absolutely right that there are certain 

types of projects, large-scale infrastructure, resilience, mitigation 

projects, that will not be able to meet a 24-month deadlines. We 

have begun a detailed process with OMB and the grantees to look 

at certain types of investments and to create a waiver process that 

would allow not, you know, with a lot of red tape, but up front here 

are the categories where we are going to be willing to waive it and 

to allow agencies and grantees to come in and have sort of 

preapproved authority if certain conditions are met for those to go 

beyond the 24 months and to establish more reasonable deadlines 

for those kind of projects. But we do believe that the large majority 

of projects—housing redevelopment, rebuilding small businesses, 

getting boardwalk back on the shore—all of these are types of 

projects where we ought to be able to meet the 24-month deadline. 

And for the ones where we should be able to, we will keep that 

timeline.

Ms. LOWEY. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, by my personal privilege, we have the mayor of Lawton, 

Oklahoma standing up back there. That is my second largest city 

and fourth largest in the state of Oklahoma, home of the Field Artillery, and civic leaders in Tulsa where my colleague, Chairman 

Granger visited to be honored by the Comanche Nation for her 

work on their—the Navajos think they were the first code talkers 

but it was really the Comanches. Kay helped get that straightened 

out, so she was honored. 

Mr. PASTOR. There is still debate on that. 

Mr. COLE. Pardon? 

Mr. PASTOR. There is still debate on that. 
196

Mr. COLE. Well, not really. I will let you take that up personally 

with the Comanches. 

If I could, Mr. Secretary, and I am new to this Committee and 

I wanted to bring up a couple of matters related to Indian housing 

questions that I have. Years ago, before I was in Congress, I sat 

on a bank board, a tribally-owned bank, and probably is the largest 

single originator of Section 184 Loans for Native Americans, not 

just in Oklahoma but really all across Indian country. And they tell 

me that there has been—they have twice had funds cut off in the 

last few years where we basically just ran out of money with almost no notice whatsoever and they had a lot of loans in process. 

Literally, people who had left their homes, you know, counting on 

getting—this had been preapproved but we just ran out of money 

and they had no notification and no ability to help people that they 

might have kept where they were at. So this has been a matter of 

a great deal of concern to them. 

Can you tell me, are you aware of the problem and what, if anything, are we doing to make sure that does not happen again? 

CREDIT SUBSIDY SHORTFALL

Secretary DONOVAN. Absolutely. And this is a challenge we have 

in a number of our loan programs, not just the 184 program. But 

basically what happened was that we have, through the appropriations bill, credit, subsidy, and commitment limits for how much 

business basically we can do in each of these programs. The 

amount of business that we had during the first months of this 

year exceeded our expectations and basically at the end of February we ran out of credit—so-called credit subsidy. And there was 

about a month where we could not approve new commitments. We 

went ahead and closed ones that we had already authorized, but 

we could not do new ones. We worked with the Committee to, in 

the continuing resolution, get an anomaly that added, I think, $12 

million in new credit subsidy that it would allow us to move forward, and we do believe that is sufficient for the rest of the year. 

Mr. COLE. That helped, but had we not had a CR, which was 

just, you know, we were sort of fortunate that that vehicle was 

coming along, you know, we would have left a lot of people hanging.

Secretary DONOVAN. Honestly, we have had this experience in 

our other programs in the past where we have had to get standalone legislation done. And I would say if we do not get standalone 

legislation for our multifamily and health care programs, we are 

going to have the same exact problem in mid-August. And here is 

what concerns me the most about this. That is a $5 billion increase, not in credit subsidy but in commitment authority for our 

multifamily programs. If we do not get that, we think we will lose 

22,000 jobs that are being created by these new either hospitals, 

multifamily developments. We also would have fewer refinances 

that would happen. These are making—because of record low interest rates they are making our fund safer for the taxpayer by doing 

the refinancing. And on the multifamily programs we actually 

make money. So there is $200 million that the taxpayer would lose 

out on if we had to shut down those programs in mid-August. So 

this is not something that is unique to the Section 184 program. 
197

It is something that we have in the past been able to work well 

with Congress on, but obviously, getting that legislation through, 

as you said on the CR, was absolutely critical. And we are going 

to have the same challenge going forward on our multifamily and 

health care programs later this year if we do not get legislative relief.

Mr. COLE. Well, I would like to work with you on that, and 

frankly see what we can do to maybe be a little bit more precise 

in our estimates so that, again, we can get the lender a little bit 

of advanced notice because we literally had a lot of families that 

were adversely impacted, you know, not deliberately by the lender. 

They are the point of contact so they take the grief. 

Secretary DONOVAN. I completely understand. 

Mr. COLE. Okay. I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Cole. 

Mr. Quigley. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Secretary.

Secretary DONOVAN. Good morning. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Secretary, as you know, a lot of the agencies and 

foundations, organizations that deal with HIV/AIDS are in my district. Many of them are concerned about is the Department looking 

or considering consolidating HOPWA into the Homeless Assistance 

program? Whenever something like this happens there is a concern 

that the Agency loses focus or initiative or emphasis on that particular issue. Can you run through the Agency’s thinking about this 

and where that process is? 

COMBINING HOPWA AND HOMELESS ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Secretary DONOVAN. And let me be very clear, Congressman. 

What I am talking about here is the staffing and oversight of the 

program within HUD; not the programmatic dollars themselves. 

We have proposed in the 2014 budget to fully fund the HOPWA 

program. In fact, every year in very difficult fiscal circumstances, 

the president has proposed full funding for the HOPWA program, 

and he will continue to defend the program as a very important investment.

But we are planning to move forward with bringing together the 

staffing for the HOPWA program with our other special needs 

housing programs. Part of that, frankly, is just the fiscal challenges 

that we have under sequestration, and we have to look for efficiencies everywhere we can. 

But there is also a programmatic reason to do that. As the epidemic has evolved, what we have seen is that more and more people that are struggling with HIV and AIDS are also folk who are 

at imminent risk or are actually already homeless. And what we 

want to do is find ways that we can better align these investments. 

Again, we are not proposing to consolidate the programs, but we 

are looking to better align the work that is being done on the 

ground with families and individuals with HIV and AIDS with the 

work that we are doing around homelessness. And we think we will 

actually get better results by doing that programmatically, and 

that is one of the reasons, along with the fiscal challenge we have, 

to try to align the staffing and the oversight of these programs. 
198

Mr. QUIGLEY. Now, as Cook County commissioner I learned all 

too well how important housing was for the care issues for people 

with HIV/AIDS. 

Secretary DONOVAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. And I would be glad to work with you to maintain 

those efforts. 

In your testimony you mentioned loan limits, a particular area 

of frustration for me because I understand the concept. I understand why they were there. But what I appreciate your help with 

is the fact that the borders, the boundaries are not in particular 

accordance with the financial reality. So sometimes an area will be 

skewed far below what it should be, dramatically hurting housing 

possibilities in that area, and hurting the housing market. So as 

a result, conforming loan limits in parts of a district like mine are 

far below where they should be and it curtails activity. Could you 

comment on that or what we can do to try to at least address some 

of those issues? 

RAISE FHA LOAN LIMITS

Secretary DONOVAN. Yes. So I do believe, the Administration believes, as I said in my testimony, that we have to continue to find 

ways to shrink the government’s footprint. We made progress on 

that. FHA’s market share has been shrinking. It is back to roughly 

where it was in 2000. But we still have further steps that we need 

to take on that front. And ultimately, we believe that Congress 

ought to allow FHA’s loan limits to go back to the level that they 

were before the HERA legislation raised them to about $730,000 in 

some places. 

Having said that, I recognize that that is a national question; 

that there are particular districts where the boundaries of how we 

set loan limits are not particularly aligned with the realities of the 

housing market. I saw this in New York City, and often we are 

going on metropolitan scale decisions. So what I would suggest is 

we would be happy to follow up with you and have specific conversations about the areas that you are concerned about and to see 

whether there is something that we can do to better align the 

boundaries that we work with with the realities of the housing 

market.

Mr. QUIGLEY. And I appreciate that. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, what I have learned here in just a 

short period of time on this Committee is that secretaries have a 

way of reminding us that a lot of this bad legislation is our fault. 

I get it. But there are some things, and I think you just pointed 

to one of them, where the secretaries can act unilaterally and 

change some of this that is creating a hardship. 

Secretary DONOVAN. On the specific boundaries, we do have 

some—not complete flexibility, but I do have some, and we ought 

to talk about that. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Very good. Thank you. 

Mr. LATHAM. The gentleman’s time has expired. I do not know 

if you have anything to do with the bridge in Washington, but if 

we could have Ms. Herrera Beutler. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. He is going to dodge that subject today. 

Mr. LATHAM. Ms. Herrera Beutler is recognized. 
199

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I actually wanted to kind of go back to the last part of the answer you gave to Mr. Cole, because that was something I have been 

hearing a lot about was the commitment authority and concerns, 

whether it is hospitals or multifamily housing, that the commitment authority is going to be insufficient. 

I guess I did not understand that that is something you may 

have known about prior to this CR, but this is something we need 

to fix. You cannot just start in the middle of something like this 

significant and then, oh, we ran out of money, especially considering, from what I understand, that the program kind of covers 

itself, at least as far as the multifamily housing piece is concerned. 

Can you speak to that a little bit more? 

INCREASE COMMITMENT AUTHORITY

Secretary DONOVAN. It does. And even just that extra—currently, we have $25 billion in commitment authority. We are asking to go 

up to $30 billion, just that extra $500 million—that extra $5 billion, sorry, in commitment authority would return about $200 million to the Federal government. So the new loans, we think the sort 

of profits, if you will, on those are about $200 million. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So for the extra $5 billion in authority you will get another $200 million? 

Secretary DONOVAN. We would earn for the taxpayer about $200 

million.

And I will say, this is something that we did try to get into the 

CR. I think there are broader concerns that stopped it around this 

issue I just raised of what is the government’s footprint, should we 

be shrinking FHA’s footprint? As you have heard, I do believe over 

the longer term that we should do that. I think this is the wrong 

way to do it by stopping us. These are literally projects ready to 

go. Shovel-ready as they say. And we are talking about 22,000 jobs 

that would not be created just with that $5 billion in commitment 

authority.

And I would also say this is not an issue that only affects particular districts. One thing I would point to, critical access hospitals in rural areas are a substantial part of our investment in our 

hospital program. Small multifamily properties are often the beneficiary. We know in Ms. Granger’s district, for example, Texas is 

a place that is significantly dependent on investments from this 

program.

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So if it were not an anomaly and it was 

standalone legislation or the idea of it, would it then bag a zero or 

negative—I mean, would it have a negligible CBO score? Can you 

guestimate on that? 

Secretary DONOVAN. The score would be positive because of the 

money that we are making on these new loans. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Wow. 

Secretary DONOVAN. So, now, I am not sure that it would be 

scored and we would have to work, but if it is scored by CBO it 

would have a positive score because it does return. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. And it is not that the commitment—it is 

not that these things are going to be built, it is the commitment 

authority. It is not that they have not been—— 
200

Secretary DONOVAN. All this says—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. It is in the pipeline already; is that—am 

I understanding that right? 

Secretary DONOVAN. Working in the pipeline, we are well along. 

They have presented architectural plans to us. They have negotiated with their contractor. I mean, these are not sort of glimmers 

in the eye of developers going forward. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. It is process across country? 

Secretary DONOVAN. Real projects. We could show you the holes 

in the ground. We could show you the plans. We could, you know, 

you can meet the contractors that are ready to have plumbers and 

other folks start on the jobs. And it is 22,000 of them. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. That is a pretty big deal. 

Can I switch topics on you? I think I still have a little bit of time. 

Section 8 project-based Rental Assistance Program. I have no 

idea. Everybody keeps using the section and law where everything 

is from. I am not that good yet. The budget proposal indicates that $10.2 billion requests will enable the 12 months of funding, but I have been told, and we keep 

hearing, whether it is sequestration or flat funding for our fiscal 

year 2013, we are actually short what is expected. Can you tell us 

if the $10.2 billion request for 2014 will actually fund the contracts 

for a full 12 months? 

PBRA SHORTFALL

Secretary DONOVAN. It is sufficient to fully fund these projectbased rental assistance contracts. And I want to be clear. This is 

over a million apartments around the country, a million families. 

It is sufficient assuming that the president’s budget proposal, 

which is what this is part of, obviously, is adopted. And so to be 

clear, the president has proposed a way to reverse sequestration 

while still reducing our overall budget by $1.8 trillion. If sequestration remains, we will be, even with our request, $1.2 billion short 

in this project-based rental assistance account in 2014. What that 

means is that we would have to short-fund contracts. There would 

not be sufficient money for a full year of funding. And that is something that we are very concerned about. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. My time is up. We will circle back 

around. Thank you. 

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Ryan. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, good to see 

you again. 

Secretary DONOVAN. You, too. 

Mr. RYAN. I will try to get through a couple questions here. 

Hardest hit funds? I am working with Congressman Joyce and 

Congresswoman Kaptur about trying to see how some of these 

funds can be used for demolition. How do you feel about that? 

DEMOLITIONS AND TARP FUNDS

Secretary DONOVAN. I am well aware of these efforts. We have 

actually hosted meetings at the White House between HUD, Treasury, the National Economic Council. And I am fully supportive of 

that flexibility. Ultimately, this is a legal question of what can— 

the hardest hit funds, they are part of TARP. What they can be 
201

used for. And so we are working actively to try to be as creative 

as we can in terms of how these could be used. 

Mr. RYAN. Great. Okay. We will look forward to working with 

you on that. 

Secretary DONOVAN. I would also say that the Neighborhood Stabilization Initiative that we have proposed as part of CDBG would 

give significant ability to be able to do demolition, to fund land 

banks, to do other things that I know are of particular importance 

to you and to others on the Committee. 

Mr. RYAN. Yeah. I mean, we have had some success with a lot 

of this. 

Secretary DONOVAN. A great deal of success. 

Mr. RYAN. In Northeast Ohio, and I think that was the original 

intent, was the older industrial cities, that have a lot going on. It 

is just amazing. You know, I use the example all the time in Cleveland, which is not necessarily my district, but you have the Cleveland Clinic. It is one of the best health care, you know, operations 

going in the world. And one block outside of it is the poorest neighborhood in the country. And some of these programs have been 

really successful. 

I just want to ask you one other question or make a comment. 

The Neighborhood Stabilization, we had an issue in Youngstown 

because when the formula was written it was for folk who had been 

affected through the housing crisis in the last few years. Some of 

these older communities, like Youngstown and Akron and Cleveland and some of these others, we have had chronic foreclosure 

issues since the collapse of the steel industry. So there was a process there where we were not necessarily qualifying for some of the 

grant money and it became harder and more hurdles for us to jump 

over. So I just want to get that on your radar screen as you are 

going through some of these other programs and ideas to make 

sure that we are not locking out communities that have had these 

chronic issues. Because, as I said, there are a lot of very positive 

things going on. 

And as we are trying to lure—and that is why I just love a lot 

of what you are doing and what the president is pushing—we are 

in the process now of luring young people back to these communities that left 20, 30 years ago—maybe they are not as young as 

I think I am still—that want to come back and now they are seeing 

downtown revitalization. They are seeing a lot of the dilapidated 

homes go down. And that is why I think the work you are doing 

is very, very important, and part of an overall comprehensive economic development agenda that local communities like ours can 

tap into. We have got the Additive Manufacturing Institute that 

the president is pushing these 15 innovations in, so that is in 

Youngstown. Plus the Neighborhood Stabilization we are starting 

to begin to piece together. That is why I think these are great programs that the more they get ramped up, the more economic development is going to happen in one of the older industrial cities that 

lifts everybody up in the process. So I want to thank you for that. 

Question on the promise zones. Can you just mention about 

them? I am sorry I came in late, but if you could just talk about 

those for a second. And again, I wanted to make sure that with the 

promise zones, places like Youngstown and Akron do not somehow 
202

locked out because the formula is not written the way we would be 

able to benefit from. 

Secretary DONOVAN. So I would say on both these—Neighborhood Stabilization, as well as the promise zones—we want to work 

close with the Committee. The ranking member mentioned this as 

well. How exactly we set the formulas are based on legislative language in the Appropriations Act. So we want to work closely with 

you to make sure we get that right. 

PROMISE ZONES

Let me talk for a moment just about the promise zones. This is 

something the president talked about in the state of the union address. It is something we all believe in the administration is deeply 

important. And I want to be clear. This is not a new program; this 

is taking the work that we did in the first term at HUD, Department of Education, at Justice, Health and Human Services—that 

is focused on our most challenged neighborhoods and is proposing 

to significantly increase those investments for the work we are 

doing at HUD, a Choice Neighborhoods investment up to $400 million. Focusing things like Neighborhood Stabilization into those 

communities. Focusing the work that we are doing through our 

rental assistance demonstration in those communities. 

But I would also say one of the things that we have learned in 

talking to mayors and others in community organizations, businesses in these communities, is that too often these programs can 

be, you know, siloed and, well, one department does not know what 

the other department is doing on these. So the idea of promise 

zones is to link all of these together and to have a single federal 

team on the ground in these communities, working to make sure 

that we coordinate and improve the way these investments are 

being made together, both in urban and rural communities. 

USDA is deeply involved through their strike force effort to make 

sure that we are doing it in rural communities as well. And we 

would have a set-aside for rural communities as well. 

Mr. RYAN. If I could just mention in 10 seconds that having Ag 

involved, too, in the urban programs, because the urban Ag people 

are jonesing to get more urban Ag in their communities, and it ties 

into edible classrooms and a more comprehensive plan. So thank 

you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary DONOVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. 

We have completed the first round here, but I want to go back 

to the indefinite authority with Treasury, the $943 million. And I 

think that estimate was February, that that is what the number 

was going to be. And the actual amount you will need I guess will 

be determined September 30th. What chance is there of it being 

less than that? Or do we know? 

LOAN VALUE ESTIMATE

Secretary DONOVAN. I wish I had a crystal ball on that. What I 

can tell you, last year, as you remember, Mr. Chairman, we did 

have a negative estimate in the budget, about just under $700 million. And we were able to end the year with about a $3 billion sur-
203

plus. Part of this is just loan volume. And honestly, I cannot tell 

you whether we are going to exceed our loan value estimate. Part 

of it is the improvements that we are making, not just through premium increases but other steps that could help us there as well. I would say that the $943 million was our best guess, our best 

estimate at that point, and I am—honestly, I am concerned without 

putting a percentage chance on it, that we will need to draw at the 

end of the year, given what we know at this point. But I am also 

not going to give up until, you know, a day before the end of the 

fiscal year because I do want to make sure we are doing everything 

we can. And these legislative proposals that we have are a piece 

of what we can do to make sure we minimize the chances. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Getting back to HECM, you mentioned that 

you would like the authority to issue mortgaging letters; to undertake several reforms at HECM as soon as possible, such as restricting lump sum payments and requiring financial assessments and 

requiring borrowers to escrow taxes and insurance. In the meantime, HUD would implement a full rulemaking process on the 

issues.

Have you begun that rulemaking process? When do you plan to 

publish the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking? 

HECM REFORMS

Secretary DONOVAN. Obviously, we would prefer not to have to 

do the full rulemaking, but we have begun drafting the details. 

July, we would be prepared to formally begin the rulemaking process if necessary, but I also want to be clear. We have taken a series 

of steps, even short of the rulemaking; instituted new counseling 

procedures; new steps on taxes and insurance, even though we cannot currently require the escrow without the rulemaking. They 

have, both in our counseling and our work with lenders, made sure 

that they are more focused on this and the way that they are managing those. So there is a range of steps that we can and have 

taken. And, in fact, we have seen better performance. We have cut 

the faults about in half for the 2011 too on an applies to applies 

basis. So we do think that some of those steps we have taken are 

having a positive effect. But that does not short circuit the need for 

this authority to do the changes without full notice and comment 

rulemaking.

Mr. LATHAM. When did you become aware of the problems with 

HECM? I will ask that first. 

Secretary DONOVAN. So we had concerns right from the beginning of the administration, which is why we put together this 

Saver program. We were hopeful that we would see a more substantial shift than we did. Part of the problem, again, not to get 

in the weeds, is Fannie Mae stopped providing a secondary market 

outlet for the reverse mortgage programs, which meant that we 

ended up seeing a lot more of the fixed rate, full draw program, 

which is the problem. And the other thing I will say, this is a program that is more sensitive to what is happening with home prices 

than any of our other programs. And so a bit of this was we expected to see home prices begin to recover earlier. When that did 

not happen it produced a much more negative effect on reverse 

mortgage.
204

Mr. LATHAM. Explain why. 

Secretary DONOVAN. Because these are mortgages that tend to 

last much longer, and they are also based on the value of the home. 

The recoveries are based more on the value of home than the ability to pay. It is a reverse mortgage, and so it is not about the ability to pay. It is really all about the home value. 

And therefore, when you see the substantial changes in home 

prices that we saw, it tends to drive losses as a percentage much 

higher on the reverse mortgage program than you would on the 

other programs. 

Mr. LATHAM. Have you foreclosed on any individuals? 

Secretary DONOVAN. Unfortunately, we have. I do not have the 

numbers right in front of me. I would be happy to get you—I think 

it is something north of 1,000. And a lot of this is related to property taxes and insurance. It is why this escrow proposal is absolutely critical. And look, these are enormously difficult decisions to 

make—1,200 is the number of foreclosures that we have seen. 

Mr. LATHAM. All right. 

Secretary DONOVAN. We have also, counsel, this is one of the reasons why our counseling programs are so important; there is no 

other source of funding for counseling for reverse mortgages other 

than HUD’s counseling budget. We are proposing a $10 million increase in that budget to $55 million because we do think particularly for HECM, it is incredibly important that we have adequate 

counseling as seniors who are making these decisions. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. PASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, about a month ago we had the IG and GAO in an 

Oversight meeting talking about some of the issues that HUD was 

being confronted with. And one of the issues was your computer 

system and I guess if I was to summarize it—old, outdated, ineffective system, software, needs to be modernized. And so the inefficiencies are there. And so reports that are needed or recordkeeping 

is probably not at its best. I am sure probably you have been told 

that that seems to be the assessment by your own people. 

Secretary DONOVAN. Not just told; I have seen it myself. 

Mr. PASTOR. What are you doing in terms of bringing the system 

up so that your efficiencies are increased, modernization is occurring?

IMPROVEMENTS TO HUD’S COMPUTER SYSTEMS

Secretary DONOVAN. First off, I would say as the new ranking 

member on this Committee, I have been very pleased with the 

partnership that we have had with this Committee to invest 

through our Transformation Initiative and our working capital 

fund in technology. I am a big believer that we can do a lot better 

on this front, and I think we have begun to make some real strides. 

Just to give you a few examples, our FHA Transformation Initiatives are really bearing fruit. We are on schedule, on budget with 

those efforts. One of the things that we have just introduced this 

past quarter is new automated ways to approve and monitor FHA 

lenders. Significantly can lower our costs and improve recoveries 

for the taxpayer. We are working very hard. We have put in place 
205

a new automated procurement system that is a substantial improvement over what we were doing before. We have a next generation management system for our voucher program. 

We are also, I will tell you, looking at places that we can 

outsource. We are looking at our financial systems. We felt that the 

prior program that would have remade our whole financial systems 

with essentially a new system. We took another look at it and decided that is not the way to go; we can save more money and do 

this more quickly by perhaps outsourcing to another government 

agency that already has the capacity to do this. So there is a range 

of different ways that we are looking at this. And I have been very 

pleased with the partnership on it. 

The other thing I would say is we just have too many systems. 

And so we have set a specific goal for next year to reduce the number of systems we have at HUD by 10 percent as a first step towards further consolidation going forward. So those are a few examples of what I think is improvement. And if you talk to GAO 

and the IG, I think they would agree that we are making progress 

on this but we have got a long way to go to get to the place we 

need to be. 

Mr. PASTOR. How would you define ‘‘a long way’’? 

Secretary DONOVAN. I think it depends on which of these systems, but we have what are essentially plans that by the end of 

this second term we ought to be in a much better place. So my 

long-term vision is four years. 

Mr. PASTOR. This is cyber security week here at the House, and 

one of the problems that we will be discussing is privacy and within your system you have a lot of personal data of the people you 

are assisting at Housing. 

Secretary DONOVAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. PASTOR. And loans. You have all that information. And everybody thinks that cyber security only concerns terrorist acts and 

that type of—the need for that type of security. But in many cases 

it is just people who are hacking and wanted to have information 

and just are challenged by systems. As you design your systems 

and you modernize and all that, what are you doing? Just make 

sure that the privacy of the clients is being secured. 

CYBER SECURITY

Secretary DONOVAN. It is a great question. It is both privacy of 

the folks that we serve. Obviously, we are looking at their incomes. 

There are a whole range of information that is very private. Their 

health status in many cases. But also HUD employees as well. And 

protecting that information. 

This is something that my deputy secretary has really taken on 

as an agency-wide project. We put in place specific plans to protect 

either by removing, for example, social security numbers and other 

information that we collected but did not need, or where we do 

need that information to ensure that it is encrypted and protected. 

We are about 90 percent of the way through those plans, and we 

expect that by the end of the fiscal year we will be 100 percent 

complete on instituting those plans. We will be happy to work with 

you given your experience on your other Committees. Happy to 

work with you in more detail about the specifics of those. 
206

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Pastor. 

Ms. Granger. 

Ms. GRANGER. I just have one short question. It has to do with 

the Transformation Initiative. Do you think you will need authorizing legislation on some of the changes you are making? 

IT FUNDING

Secretary DONOVAN. This is something we have worked well with 

the Committee on. We do not think it is separate authorizing legislation. What I would say—and this has been I think the essence 

of the sort of conversation debate we have had with the Committee—we have proposed consistently to build some flexibility into 

the Transformation Initiative by saying allow us to use up to a half 

a percent of a range of programs to do this, and in response there 

is often concern, well, we do not want to take away money from 

those programs. And so it has tended to be a hard dollar number. 

What I would say is many of the things that we work on, whether it is with the housing market—disasters is another very good example—you cannot plan for exactly what is going to happen in 

those. And as an example, in Texas we have had significant back 

and forth in work with the state land office around making sure 

that we are getting disaster relief from Ike and Gustav to the right 

places.

We would not have known at the beginning of the year that we 

had those needs, before the disaster struck, but I think if you go 

ask the state they would say the technical assistance we have been 

able to provide through the transformation issue has been enormously beneficial, and frankly is going to save a ton of money on 

the backend because we are going to make better choices on how 

we are using that money. And it is going to be used faster and 

more effectively. 

So I would just urge that as the Committee considers our request 

on the transformation issue, it is not just the amount of money but 

the ability to continue to make changes during the year. We are 

obviously going to come back in our operating plan to get your concurrence and to work with you on that, but if we lock it in at the 

beginning that it can only be X amount and we do not have the 

flexibility to move between accounts during the year. It hurts our 

ability to respond to things like Gustav and Ike in Texas. 

Ms. GRANGER. Thank you. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Ms. Granger. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just like to maybe dig a little deeper on the urban farming approach within the administration. So if you could just talk 

about that emphasis within your department and how it is going 

and what your new plans are, and maybe how it fits into the promise zones in urban areas. 

URBAN FARMING INITIATIVE

Secretary DONOVAN. Yeah. This is something that we have done 

a significant amount of work on in partnership with USDA and 

also some other agencies. I would say that the Neighborhood Stabilization effort has been one particular way that we have really 

been able to support the initiative. Obviously, creating contiguous 
207

parcels where you can do urban farming is a key piece of this. 

There is often from my experience also there can be environmental 

clean up or other costs associated with it or building these gardens 

in a way that has a specific way of protecting whatever has grown 

from any contaminants that might have been in the soil. And so 

Neighborhood Stabilization has been a very flexible tool to do the 

demolition, combined with CDBG and some other funding sources. 

The other thing I would say though that probably does not get 

as much attention is the work that we have done in what we are 

proposing to call our Office of Economic Resilience to do planning 

that would connect. We have seen a number of grantees who believe, as you do, that this is a big source of opportunity for jobs. 

In communities where frankly population density has shrunk over 

decades, and to do planning that would connect, well, who are actually going to be producing this? Who are the farmers and other networks that you can connect to? And also, what are the distribution 

channels for this food? Because obviously growing it, producing it 

is one thing but where it is actually sold, creating the connections, 

whether it is to local markets or more broadly to regional distribution networks is a very important part. 

And one of the things that is unique about these planning and 

implementation grants is they really do create regional—and 

CDBG does not do this, right? CDBG goes to individual communities. There is not a source of planning money that is regional. 

And you know from your own experience the northeast Ohio focus 

that we have had is multicounty, multi-jurisdiction, and it really is 

one of the few ways that HUD can fund a regional economic development plan that would include food distribution but might include 

other key steps around urban farming. 

Mr. RYAN. Yeah, no, I think that is really a smart approach and 

lays the groundwork for the kind of growth that I think can come 

from it. 

Also, within the urban farming initiative, one of the things we 

are working on now is how do we take, as you are already working 

with the Department of Agriculture, how do we take some of the 

subsidies that go to big Ag now, and how do we just take a sliver 

of those and drive those into co-ops that may be operating in urban 

areas so that you have wage issues in a lot of these cities where 

people are maybe making $30,000 or $40,000. And I know this is 

not an Ag hearing, but I think you, in your department, would be 

instrumental in a program like this to where a family or 10 families or 15 families that participate in a co-op in an urban area that 

maybe get some subsidies for their family at the end of the year 

for producing food in a food desert in an urban area and try to get 

some of that investment back into the urban areas. 

So I think all of this can tie together. And with the education 

program where we are starting edible classrooms, so where these 

kids can utilize the edible classroom during the school year but 

then have this urban gardening experience, urban farming experience at the end of the day where you tie in business class to the 

marketing at the farmers market and on and on and on and on. 

But I want to just thank you for your leadership because I think 

you get this in a way that a lot of people do not. And we would 

love to just continue to work with you and innovate and do this in 
208

a more creative way. So thank you for everything and your staff 

have been terrific, too, along the way. 

Secretary DONOVAN. I appreciate it. I am married to a landscape 

architect, so I give her a lot of credit for waking me up about this. 

But I would also say that I think the Fresh Food Financing initiative that we have put together as an administration is also a big 

opportunity here. I am obviously not an expert on the farm bill and 

those changes but I do think it is also about bringing private capital to these kinds of initiatives. And I think we have done a lot 

there that we might be able to work with you as well. 

Mr. LATHAM. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to stay on the subject of Indian housing, but move to 

another area, NAHASDA block grants for tribes. And as I am sure 

you are aware, we quite often have a lot of unobligated balances 

out there. I know this Committee has been very concerned about 

that and appropriately so given how difficult some of the timing or 

some of the fiscal challenges we have are. 

But I am told, and again, I am new to this so I would appreciate 

being educated, I am told that there are a couple of problems here 

that lead to this. One is that Indian tribes have a lot of environmental processes and bureaucratic hoops that they have to go 

through before they can actually get the money. Second, the Department has been sometimes pretty slow in getting the money out 

to the tribes. I think that the fiscal year 2012 money did not come 

until like February of 2013, that sort of thing. So can you tell me, 

one, are there some reforms, some things we need to do in the process to speed this up from your standpoint, make it easier to do this; 

and second, do the tribes have some sort of unique set of difficulties 

in actually expending the funds that you make available, which 

really are the backbone of a lot of tribal housing programs in places 

that are really very remote and very much in need of what you are 

doing? So it is not a critical question. I just want to figure out how 

to make these things work better. 

TRIBAL HOUSING BLOCK GRANTS

Secretary DONOVAN. I think it is a combination of issues. And 

one, I think we should be very clear that we operate with these 

tribes in a nation-to-nation relationship. And so there is, I think, 

both legally and programmatically a flexibility that they are afforded and a sort of limitation on what enforcement we might take 

based on that relationship that is different than our other grantees. 

And so part of this is where we do have real challenges about performance and other things. How do we work with them? And I 

think that is one piece of this I would mention that you did not. 

But I also would agree part of it is environmental; part of it honestly is just land ownership, for example, is often very complicated 

on tribal lands. And even I have experienced, you know, frustrations in—I remember meeting a family on one of my tribal visits 

that the family was trying to buy their mother’s home and it had 

taken over a year to get approval to put a lien on it with the mortgage; right? So there are challenges like that that are not just environmental as well. 
209

And I do think, you know, to say for HUD, there are things that 

we can and should be doing to speed up our own processes. We 

have made some progress on that to be able to allocate faster. 

There have also been lawsuits and other things that have held us 

back from doing it that we are trying to resolve. But part of this 

is also—and I think Congresswoman Granger asked about our 

Transformation Initiative—providing technical assistance to some 

of the tribes with the largest unexpended balances has been very, 

very important, both Native Hawaiian is one example where we 

have had some challenges at the local authority. We are working 

through that with them. The Navajo tribe, others that we are 

working with, and we are seeing acceleration of spending, but it is 

going to take us, given some of those unexpended balances, probably a year or two to work through those. 

Mr. COLE. We seem to have a lot of these problem folks in the 

Southwest regional office. And again, I am not being critical of anybody because I do not know, but is there a bottleneck there or does 

it just happen to be the concentration of where you have got a lot 

of obviously large tribal entities? 

Secretary DONOVAN. I think it is largely. We do not see differential performance geographically. Such an enormous share of the 

funding goes into that southwest area. 

Mr. COLE. Okay. Last question. I would just ask—I would love 

to get a brief from your office on just the range of Native American 

programs that you run and what you are doing because, again, I 

am new to this Subcommittee and could use the education. 

Secretary DONOVAN. NAHASDA is obviously the single largest 

and most—and it will require reauthorization. So this is obviously 

the Appropriations Committee, but I would just point out it would 

be critical to make sure that we get that reauthorization on a timely basis. We also have a proposal to deal with mold in Indian country in the budget this year as part of the Indian Community Development Block Grant. And that is a major health challenge that we 

have seen among tribes. 

Mr. COLE. And I am sure, Chairman, we would never appropriate if the authorizers had not authorized; right? 

Mr. PASTOR. Gentleman, would you yield? Mr. Cole? 

Mr. COLE. I am out of time, but certainly. 

Mr. LATHAM. Go ahead, Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. PASTOR. On behalf of the Nation of the original code talkers, 

we want to thank you for asking this issue. We appreciate it. 

Mr. LATHAM. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. COLE. Let us just let the—read the Empire of the Summer 

Moon, and we will let the Comanche—I will send them Blood and 

Thunder and we will see who is the tougher. 

Mr. LATHAM. I seem to have lost control. 

Ms. Herrera Beutler. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I wanted to—I will ask for a little bit of a clarification on the end 

of the last answer and I will reread that question just because I 

was not totally following it. But I also—let me get this other question in and then let you answer how you choose. 

I am very pleased to see HUD is doing the Veterans Assistance— 

the VASH vouchers. It is Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing 
210

vouchers—there we go—targeting homeless veterans. As you know, 

the program requires a pretty intense wraparound or service coordination with this population. And I have heard from some of my 

local housing authorities that because of the administrative fees 

that have been reduced, and just basically I am having folks tell 

me it is insufficient. Some housing authorities are returning the 

VASH vouchers and are not able to administer this program. 

How is HUD going to put the VASH program on firmer footing 

to help achieve the important national goal of ending chronic veteran housing by 2015? 

And then, so you can either start with that one or the last part, 

I did not understand—so I was asking about the $10.2 request and 

whether that is short. And I heard no and yes. So I heard $10.2 

will fund it based on what we are expecting the 12-month period 

to be, but then I also heard—is that contingent on you getting more 

money? I did not understand that. 

IMPACT OF SEQUESTRATION

Secretary DONOVAN. Let me try to be as clear as possible on this. 

If sequestration is not reversed, the funding that we have requested for 2014 will be $1.2 billion short in the project-based—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So you did not ask for what you are expecting the expenditures to be; you asked for an amount hoping 

that also there is an addition of the sequestration? 

Secretary DONOVAN. All of the president’s budget is constructed—he has proposed a way to reverse sequestration. And he 

believes that we ought to get a resolution this summer, hopefully, 

that would reverse sequestration and put in place a more balanced 

deficit reduction plan. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Okay. 

Secretary DONOVAN. So all of the budget, not just HUD’s, is 

based on that assumption. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. The assumption that sequestration is reversed?

Secretary DONOVAN. Is reversed. That is correct. We believe that 

is the right policy. It is the right direction to go. And I will also 

say that as we were preparing the budget, it was not clear whether 

or not sequestration would go into effect. We were still hoping that 

we would be able to avoid that. So part of this—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I have got to call you on that one because the budget was almost two months late. I mean, we had 

dealt with—sequestration had gone into effect, but that—— 

Secretary DONOVAN. Sequestration was delayed until the end of 

February.

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. And we got the budget—— 

Secretary DONOVAN. We were deep into preparation for the budget well before then. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I get that. But by the time we actually 

got it, sequestration was a known entity. So I do feel a little concerned because who knows? You know as well as I do. We have no 

idea what is going to happen this summer, so I guess I would say 

I am a little concerned with having—you made the request that 

you are going to be doing contracts with private entities and they 
211

are moving forward with Section 8, knowing that it is all contingent on getting additional money in there. 

Secretary DONOVAN. I completely agree with you, Congresswoman. And, in fact, I would say this is only one of a huge number 

of concerns I would have if sequestration is not reversed. Even with 

changes this Committee made to do an anomaly around our homeless program, we still have 60,000 homeless folks that are likely to 

be back out on the streets. We have 125,000 families that have 

vouchers that are likely to lose their housing and be at risk of 

homelessness. You mentioned—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I was going to say, now maybe we should 

segue to the VASH question. 

VASH PROGRAM

Secretary DONOVAN. To go to the VASH question——this is, I 

think, very important because sequestration did not make direct 

cuts to veterans programs. VASH was fully preserved. The problem 

is the housing authorities that run those programs depend on fees 

to be able to basically do the work. And those fees have now been 

cut below 70 percent. So they are basically receiving two-thirds of 

what they should be receiving. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Fees from you all? 

Secretary DONOVAN. From HUD to run the Section 8 voucher 

program. VASH is a form of Section 8 voucher, and we have seen, 

last year, before sequestration, there were 12 agencies that refused 

these VASH vouchers. 

So just think about it. You are a housing agency whose sole mission is to serve folks with housing. You are saying no to serving 

homeless veterans; right? 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Because they did not feel like it was sufficient.

Secretary DONOVAN. Because they did not have the money. And 

that is 12 last year, which is the highest we have ever had before 

sequestration went into effect. We have had already this year in 

the first three months, 13 housing authorities turn in their entire 

voucher programs. Say to us, ‘‘We just cannot administer vouchers 

anymore.’’ And that is only 13 in the first quarter, again, before sequestration went into effect. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. And I apologize. 

Secretary DONOVAN. This is one of many enormously harmful effects of sequestration that I am very concerned about. I hope we 

will talk more about that. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for being 

here, Secretary. 

Secretary DONOVAN. Welcome to the Committee. 

Mr. JOYCE. I apologize for being late, and I understand from the 

copious notes taken by my legislative director that my questions 

were already answered by Congressman Pastor—asked and answered—and Congressman Ryan. So thank you for your being here. 

Secretary DONOVAN. Thank you. 

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Secretary, your budget includes—we talked 

about Section 8 reform—a number of reforms aimed at reducing 
212

program costs, as well as administrative burdens on public housing 

authorities which you were just talking about. We saw most of 

those reforms in last year’s budget, and still we have not seen any 

movement on a reform bill. Will these reforms be part of a larger 

Section 8 reform effort with the authorizing earlier this year? Or 

are you looking at fiscal year 2014? Or is it your expectation that 

we, on the Appropriations Committee, do these reforms? 

SECTION 8 REFORM LEGISLATION

Secretary DONOVAN. I hope that is not the path that we need to 

take. You know that I reached out to you, Mr. Chairman, and 

Ranking Member, a few days before we released the budget. I also 

reached out directly to Chairman Hensarling, to the Ranking Member, and also to make sure that I had conversations on the Senate 

side as well. We are very, very focused on trying to get the Section 

8 reform bill done this year within the next two months. And I do 

think we are making progress on that. 

Mr. LATHAM. Where? 

Secretary DONOVAN. Excuse me? 

Mr. LATHAM. With who? 

Secretary DONOVAN. I think both on the Senate Side, Chairman 

Johnson, and Ranking Member Crapo have shown interest in doing 

that. I do think, frankly, what has held us up in the past. There 

have been broad agreement. There have been a couple what I 

would describe as poison pill types of issues around immigration, 

around the Moving to Work program as I would describe as small 

in the overall frame of it that we have not been able to get past. 

I think we have to be able to try to push. And I think if I could 

call in your help and the ranking members to emphasize the importance of these changes, we are talking about just from that legislation $383 million in savings next year. 

We have other proposals in the budget that are not in that reform legislation that we could get done just on an appropriations 

basis that would put us over $500 million. But that legislation, obviously, is incredibly—— 

Mr. LATHAM. What can you do without authorization? I mean, 

are there other reforms? 

Secretary DONOVAN. We have been taking steps. And just—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Regulatory standards? 

Secretary DONOVAN. Absolutely. Streamlining simplification that 

we can do. 

And if I can just step back for a second. One of the things that 

really is most important in driving the costs here are new units. 

We have about 150,000 new vouchers over the last four years. We 

have talked about VASH, but lots of this comes from if a public 

housing development is in terrible condition or a multifamily, we 

issue vouchers; right? So lots of that growth and cost is really new 

families that are being served or that may be moving from our 

other programs. 

If you take that out, the growth and costs in rents is really between 2 and 3 percent each year. That is inflation. And the fundamental problem is that incomes have been going up at about 1 percent. So what has happened is not that the costs of the units are 

going up that quickly; it is really that we are at a time when rents 
213

have continued to rise but people’s incomes are not. And so that 

is meant that HUD’s share of the cost has gone up by 3 to 4 percent. And we have very detailed information on this that we would 

love to share with you. 

Mr. LATHAM. So what can you do administratively to solve it? 

Secretary DONOVAN. So I will give you an example. We changed 

the cost increase factor for our project-based programs in a way 

that significantly reduced the increase in costs. We have begun to 

take back the reserve balances that are beyond what these buildings need to do renovation and maintenance, and we have reinvested those in other programs. So we have a whole series of 

changes that we have made administratively. We also believe that 

energy efficiency is a real opportunity here and we are looking at 

ways to lower the cost. We spend billions of dollars on utilities each 

year. Part of it is sub-metering so that residents have the incentive 

to lower their own utility consumption. Part of it is just smart investments as we are replacing boilers and other things to do high 

efficiency. Other things like that have an enormous potential to 

lower our costs in the long run. We will not see as much next year, 

so legislation can do more next year, but this multiyear can help 

us significantly. And a lot of that we can do administratively and 

do not need legislation on. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. PASTOR. I want to follow up on my colleague’s question, Ms. 

Herrera Beutler. 

If public housing authorities are turning back vouches due to sequestration and inability to continue their administrative responsibilities, so that means that next year’s renewal baseline, which 

is based on this year’s leasing will really be affected. And as you 

look to next year and the baseline being affected, it is going to cost 

some major problems in our whole public housing efforts. 

Secretary DONOVAN. Absolutely. And let me try to be specific on 

the voucher program. We think it is about 125,000 families. Most 

of that comes from families that are on a waiting list today, would 

have gotten a voucher over the next few months, and instead are 

going to end up sitting on that waiting list, maybe becoming homeless depending on what their situation is, but that in some ways 

is the least visible loss of units because it is a family that is not 

already in a home that is going to be kicked out. 

We do have though 750 housing authorities where even if they 

completely stop leasing, they are not going to be able to deal with 

sequestration. And what does that mean they have to do? They literally have to start taking back vouchers from families that are already out looking for apartments. They are going to have folks that 

are evicted. They are going to have to raise rents for residents. 

Let me just give you a few examples. Des Moines has had to already reduce rents, payment standards, and utility allowances to 

try to meet the 100 folks that it needs to cut off the program. In 

Congresswoman Granger’s district, Fort Worth Housing Authority 

has pulled back 99 vouchers from families that were already out 

renting apartments. And they have to get to a total of 200 that will 

be off the program by the end of the year. 
214

Congresswoman Beutler’s Thurston County took away vouchers 

from 26 families and has to reduce overall leasing by about 150 

units. So these are real impacts that are happening as we speak 

in terms of families that are going to lose housing where their payments they are going to have to make are going to go up so much 

that they are going to be evicted, end up homeless. These are real 

impacts that are happening right now. 

And over 750 housing authorities is a huge number to have to 

be dealing with what we know are going to be shortfalls, even if 

they do not lease a single voucher for the rest of the year. 

So sequestration, this kind of blunt, indiscriminate way of cutting the budget is not the right away to approach it. 

Mr. PASTOR. So what happens to your baseline for next year? Is 

this lessened by this number of people now who are not getting 

vouchers this year? 

SEQUESTRATION

Secretary DONOVAN. In some ways it is the opposite effect of 

what is happening on the project base. The project base, because 

we have signed contracts with those owners, it increases the need 

next year. For vouchers, it may decrease it some, but that really 

depends on what strategies agencies need. Some of them have reserves, for example, that they are using to try to get through this 

period. If they use reserves and do not lower the number of families served, that means their baseline stays the same. Others that 

are having, like I mentioned in Thurston County, in Des Moines 

that are cutting families off the program, there you are going to 

have a lower baseline next year. But honestly, until we get closer 

to the end of the year we are not going to know exactly those impacts because housing authorities are still in the process of trying 

to figure out. 

I also would just go back to the fundamental point that we do 

believe, the president believes there is a different alternative here, 

which is to put in place a balanced deficit reduction plan, $1.8 trillion in savings, and reverse sequestration. That would allow us to 

not have those impacts on the baseline next year. And most importantly, those 125,000 families that are going to lose the help that 

they need. 

Mr. PASTOR. Well, I have to tell you, I agree with my colleagues 

that if you read today’s paper of the probability of having a conference on the two budgets between the House and the Senate, it 

really has curbed my enthusiasm that this thing is going to happen. And so this summer is going to be very interesting if what you 

are basing your budget on is—how realistic it is going to be. 

Secretary DONOVAN. We do have information. We have been able 

to sort of run the budget in different ways, and we can provide the 

Committee information around the sequestration levels and what 

those impacts are. So it is not like we are—we do not have that 

information, it is just that this is how the budget is presented and 

we can get you the alternate ways of looking at it working with you 

on the specifics. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Cole. 
215

Mr. COLE. I want to pick up on the line of questioning that we 

are going through right now and just offer an observation and get 

a response. 

I am worried if you are planning on sequester totally going away 

because that is just politically not likely to happen. And you know, 

again, I hope there is some sort of larger settlement sometime this 

summer. I agree with your timing on that. I voted for all those settlements when we have come to large arguments before. But the 

idea that all of those cuts will disappear and magically move over 

I think is not likely to occur. I am not going to say fanciful, but 

pretty close. 

So it would be helpful if we had some of those alternative scenarios because I think you are going to likely end up managing 

with considerably less than your budget projects if it is based on 

a total restoration of the sequestered money. 

And I would give that advice, by the way, to anybody else, not 

always happily. Because we are having to deal with these same 

kind of issues in defense and Indian health in a variety of ways. 

But you know, to think that there are the votes here to get that 

kind of total restoration I think is very unlikely. 

Secretary DONOVAN. As I said, we are doing contingency planning. We do have information that we can work with the Committee on that looks at these alternatives. I mentioned the projectbased account. We know that it would be a $1.2 billion hole and 

can be clear about what those impacts are. But I do go back to— 

even if some may say it is unlikely, the president still strongly believes that this is the right path and that we ought to work towards that. And he is not going to give up until the very last day 

when he can. 

Mr. PASTOR. Well, it would be nice to be able to arrive at a deal 

before the very last day. But I suspect everybody will be giving up 

something at some point about mid-summer. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, gentleman. 

Ms. Herrera Beutler. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. I guess I wanted to echo that in thinking 

about this, you know, I, too, have voted for some of the big deals 

because I think we need to govern. So I am not coming at this from 

an unreasonable perspective. But I know you refer to the president’s budget as balanced. Does it balance? Does the president’s 

budget balance? 

Secretary DONOVAN. It produces $1.8 trillion in savings, which 

when you add that to the $2.5 trillion that we have already produced through other agreements that have been reached over the 

last few years, gets us to a place that broadly economists, nonpartisan economists agree puts our fiscal house in order. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So it does balance? It comes to balance? 

Secretary DONOVAN. The definition for what the president seeks 

is to get to a place where our debt is under control and where we 

are on a path to long-term fiscal stability. And he believes strongly 

that we can do that when everybody does their fair share. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. And I agree with that. I know the talking point that I have heard now from several secretaries is balanced, balanced, balanced. So I know that is part of the descriptor 
216

that has come with the mandate of making these requests on the 

Hill. I just find it curious that it is a different way. It definitely 

is his vision, and I respect that that is the direction he is going to 

go, but it is hard to call something that does not ever actually come 

into balance, regardless of whether economists think it is good or 

not—I think there are people who would like it; there are people 

who do not like it—but it does not actually balance. So I just—as 

we go into this next phase, as a lawmaker who has demonstrated 

she is willing to govern and to come together on big deals, I guess 

I need to understand that you have a plan within HUD for fulfilling those contracts—his budget, our budget aside—I mean, 

working with what you have in the next six months. 

SHORT FUND

Secretary DONOVAN. Let me be as clear as possible about those 

contracts. We have signed those contracts with private and nonprofit owners. We cannot go back on them. And so if Congress does 

not appropriate the money to be able to pay those contracts, what 

we will do is short fund them. And that will mean that for contracts expiring later in the year—I think close to 75 percent of 

them—they will not get 12 months worth of money, and we will 

have to in the following year come back and put the remaining 

amount of money on those. 

There have been times in the past where we have had to do that. 

It is not the right way to run a railroad because what it means is 

that: One, owners will start to get out of the programs and will lose 

decent affordable housing; two—and this is one of the critical 

things about our programs. They are deeply connected to the private sector. One of the things that is good about our programs is 

that they raise and rely on private investment. They rely on the 

efficiencies of the market, and when there is uncertainty about 

whether we are able to honor our contracts—— 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. There are ramifications. 

Secretary DONOVAN. That makes it more expensive to run these 

projects. The interest rates on the loans will go up. The reserves 

that are required—I used to run an affordable housing lending 

business—the reserves that are required to do this will go up and 

it will make these programs—ironically, if we think it is cutting 

costs, it is actually raising costs. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. And I agree with you that the real implications of short funding a contract are going to cause good partners 

to get out, which is why I am so focused on making sure—— 

Secretary DONOVAN. I assure you, Congresswoman, we have a 

plan to do that. We will be able to deal with it. It is a bad thing 

and I have every hope that we can work with this Committee to 

get to a way to resolve this so we do not have to go through those 

bad things. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Great. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank the gentlewoman. I recognize Mr. Dent. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary. Thanks for 

being here today. 

Secretary DONOVAN. My pleasure. 

Mr. DENT. Obviously, in this difficult fiscal climate we are dealing with some real funding restraints. This Committee has a re-
217

sponsibility to make some tough decisions in setting those priorities. We will have to continue to balance where our limited federal 

resources are most effectively and efficiently directed. 

Last month, I attended a meeting with Housing and Redevelopment officials from across the country, and I also met with local 

constituents. One of the concerns I heard throughout those discussions was that while they are struggling to do more with less resources, they are also significantly impacted by increasing administrative burdens and regulatory limitations. Obviously, we have to 

ensure proper oversight, but many of the PHAs have said to me 

that it would make a huge difference in managing their budgets if 

they had more administrative flexibility. 

I wanted to highlight two very specific examples. One of my local 

housing authorities spoke with me about the burden of required energy and Green Physical Needs Assessments (GPNA) program, I 

guess. Well, this may be a valuable tool for the Department. I am 

not convinced it provides sufficient return on investment at the 

local level, and I am very concerned that housing authorities have 

to divert resources from their core mission of ensuring residents’ 

needs are met. That is the one very specific issue they raised to 

me.

The second one was, I understand under the Section 8 program 

authorities have to provide 30 days notice for a rent change. But 

if they are going to change the payment standard, you know, the 

maximum monthly housing assistance payment for a family, it requires two years’ notice. 

Providing housing authorities more flexibility there may be a 

way that they can stretch limited resources. That was a very specific issue that they had raised with me that they thought could 

help them as they deal with sequester. That would be extraordinarily helpful to them. And so I think it is really critical that 

HUD strikes that appropriate balance between minimizing unnecessary burdens on the PHAs while continuing to oversee that these 

funds are being utilized prudently. 

I am interested in hearing what you are doing to evaluate if 

there are ways you can alleviate some of those particular administrative burdens, particularly during these rough times. But the 

rent issue was a big deal to many of them. 

ADMINISTRATIVE BURDENS

Secretary DONOVAN. So this rent issue is a very tough one because what you are talking about is extremely low income families 

where even relatively small increases in rent for them could mean 

eviction or homelessness. And so typically what we do, as you said, 

is provide significant notice and ability for them to ramp up. And 

again, to be clear, this is if the Housing Authority is going to make 

a system-wide change, say everybody is going to be required to pay 

more.

We do have the authority to waive that in cases where it truly 

is an emergency. But I will say, we want to use that very sparingly. So what I would suggest, what we do is work with housing 

authorities. I mentioned the 750 housing authorities we identified 

that really do have shortfalls, even if they stop leasing. We are prepared in extreme cases to use that authority, but I do not want to 
218

use it where there are other alternatives that could lower costs and 

not put families at risk. And that is the balance. 

Mr. DENT. You do understand that I think many of these communities really want to maximize the number of people who are getting Section 8. That is why they are proposing this. I think, you 

know, a two-year notice is a lot of time. And if there were greater 

flexibility it would really help out some folks in places like Lebanon 

and Dauphin County in Pennsylvania, Lehigh County, Berks, 

where they have come to me and said—they all seem to agree that 

this was a proper remedy that would really help them stretch their 

limited Section 8 dollars to support more people. That is why I am 

making this request. 

Secretary DONOVAN. Again, it is something that we will do where 

we think it is the right alternative. But understand, we have to be 

sure that this is not going to hurt lots of families in the interest 

of helping others. And so we are happy to work with you on that. 

On the Green Physical Needs Assessment, we do believe, and we 

have seen this particularly with larger housing authorities, that 

this kind of analysis actually saves money in the long run. We understand that because of sequestration it is hard to have the funding to do this right now, and so we are looking at deferring that 

step as a result of. And we will provide flexibility to housing authorities on that. 

Mr. DENT. The communities, at least the housing officials I spoke 

with at these conferences, were very clear that this is something 

they wanted. 

Secretary DONOVAN. We also, I would add, have a number of proposals, both legislatively and also many things that we are doing 

beyond the two that you focused on to provide greater flexibility. 

We proposed in the budget to merge or to allow ‘‘fungibility’’ we call 

it between the operating and capital fund. That provides lots of 

flex. And there are many other things that we could provide you 

information on that we think can help provide greater flexibility 

right now. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you. 

Mr. LATHAM. By mutual agreement here I think we are going to 

close the hearing. I want to thank you again for your great work 

at the Department and the continued communication. Obviously, 

we have got some real challenges on the budget. You had your talking points down very well with a balanced approach and all those 

good things. I have asked other people, if it is so horrible, why did 

the president propose it and insist on sequestration? But I will not 

ask you that. We want to continue to work with you and we have 

got to get reforms so that we can make this work. 

Secretary DONOVAN. Agreed. 

Mr. LATHAM. Hopefully, if there is anything I can do as far as 

pushing the authorizers, I would love to do that. It is going to be 

very difficult over their objections to be able to have any of the reforms in our bill here, in the appropriation bill. Hopefully, there is 

an appropriation bill this year, rather than what we have seen in 

the past. But the main thing—Mr. Pastor and I want to continue 

to work very closely with you. 
219

So with that we will thank you again and we will adjourn the 

hearing.

[Questions for the record follow:] 
220

Mr. Pastor # 1 

Tenant-Based Section 8 Administration 

Question: Provide a list of all PHAs that have turned back HUD-VASIl vouchers in each 

of the past 3 fiscal years. 

Answer: This is the list of PH As that turned down new allocations ofHUD-VASH 

vouchers over the past 3 fiscal years (note that FY 2013 is to-date). 

State PHAname 

CA City of Fairfield 

GA Atlanta Housing Authority FY GA Jonesboro Urban Renewal Housing Authority 2010 PA Lancaster County I-lousing Authority 

SC Housing Authority of Spartanburg 

TX Texas Dept. oHlousing and Community Affairs 

FL Housing Authority of the City ofS!. Petersburg 

GA Atlanta Housing Authority 

FY 011 Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority 

2011 TX Waco Housing Authority 

TX Tyler Housing Authority 

WI Housing Authority of the City of Milwaukee 

FL Northwest Florida Regional Housing Authority 

GA Georgia Department of Community Affairs 

MA Worcester Housing Authority 

OH Cincilmati Metropolitan Housing Authority 

FY OH Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority 2012 OH Butler Metropolitan Housing Authority 

TX I'lousing Authority of Waco 

TX Beaumont Housing Authority 

TX Denton Housing Authority 

WI Waukesha Housing Authority 

AR North Little Rock Housing Authority 

GA Georgia Residential Finance 

KS Wichita Housing Authority 

MN Housing and Redevelopment Authority ofSt. Cloud. Minnesota 

FY20I3 MN Otter Tail County Housing and Redevelopment Authority 

OH Akron Metropolitan Housing Authority 

OH Butler Metropolitan Housing Authority 

PA Housing Authority of the City of Erie 

PA Housing Authority of the County of Lebanon 
221

TN Jackson Housing Authority 

TX Housing Authority of the City of Waco 

VA Roanoke Redevelopment & Housing Authority 

WI Wausau Community Development Authority 

WV Housing Authority of the City of Martinsburg 

WV Housing Authority of the City of Keyser 

Note: We also have one additional PHA, El Paso, who was invited to apply for 2 allocations in 

FY 2013: 25 vouchers to serve Veterans locally in EI Paso, and 15 to serve Veterans at a regional 

level, in southwest Texas. They accepted the first but declined the second allocation, due to 

reasons related to sequestration and admin fees. 
222

Mr. Pastor #2 

Tenant-Based Section 8 Administration 

Question: Provide a list of all PHAs that have terminated or consolidated their tenantbased Section 8 programs in each of the past 3 fiscal years. 

Answer: See attached Excel file. 

HCV Voluntary 

Transfers FY 2010 - F 
223

Mr. Pastor #3 

ICOBO Mold Remediation Program 

Question: Is the $10 million intended to be a separate program from the base ICOBO 

program? 

Answer: Up to $10 million for Mold Remediation is proposed as a set-aside within the 

ICOBO aceount. While decisions about this set-aside have not been finalized, HUO's current 

plan is to award these funds through a national competition, and as a part of the annual 

announcement for ICDBO funds. 
224

Mr. Pastor #4 

lCDBG Mold Remediation Program 

Question: How would tribes compete for these funds? Would it be a regional competition 

like lCDBG or a national program? 

Answer: No final decisions have been made by HUD on how to award the set-aside funds, 

but HUD expects that this will be a competitive program included as part of the ICDBG NOFA. 

The goal would be to award funding on a national basis to ensure that the tribes with the most 

need receive these funds. Announcing the funds together would also likely lessen the application 

burden on tri bes. 

In addition. applications would need to meet ICDBG threshold requirements along with 

additional criteria for mold. which PIH will formulate in partnership with the Office of Healthy 

Homes and Lead Hazard Control (OHHLllC). All grants under the set-aside would be restricted 

to HUD-assisted units and are to be used for mold remediation and related rehab only. either as 

part of a proposed larger housing rehabilitation or as a stand-alone project. Office of Native 

American Programs (ONAP) will review the applications in partnership with the OHHLHC. 
225

Mr. Pastor #5 

ICDBG Mold Remediation Program 

Question: Are there any opportunities to leverage other Federal resources like the Healthy 

Homes program at HUD or the Weatherization program at the Department of Energy to 

maximize the impact of these funds? 

Answer: ONAP plans on leveraging the mold expertise in the Healthy Homes program 

office to ensure that this set-aside has the most impact, partnering to design the program 

requirements and to evaluating applications from tribes. ONAP strongly encourages tribes to 

leverage all public and private funding, and plans to assist tribes to make the most of these mold 

remediation dollars. More specifically, HUD will assist tribes in maximizing these new funds 

with Indian Housing Block Grant funds, Title VI funds and other federal funds, including funds 

from the Departments of Energy and Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency. With 

proper leverage, HUD believes that tribes can make substantial strides towards remediating the 

persistent mold problem in Indian housing. 
226

Mr. Pastor # 6 

Housing for the Disabled (Section 811) 

Question: How has the Melville Act changed the way the Section 811 program operates? 

Answer: BUD's Section 811 program provides affordable housing for persons with 

disabilities. Historically, HUD has provided both capital advances and operating subsidies to 

non-profit sponsors to construct and manage multifamily housing for low-income persons with 

disabilities. However, starting in fiscal year 2012, HUD shifted to a new Section 811 Project 

Rental Assistance program, which provides long-term operating assistance funds to state housing 

agencies, working in partnership with state health care agencies that have developed methods for 

identifying, referring, and conducting outreach to a target population of extremely low-income 

persons with disabilities. These operating assistance funds are used to set aside units for this 

target population. These units are integrated into affordable housing projects, whose capital 

costs are funded through Low-Income Housing Tax Credits, HOME funds, or other sources. 

This allows HUD to rely on the expertise of the state housing agencies to administer the award 

and on the state health care agencies to identify the most critical population to be served and to 

guarantee the delivery of appropriate services. 
227

Mr. Pastor #7 

Housing for the Disabled (Section 811) 

Question: Is the FY 2014 request level lower due to savings from operational changes or 

does it reflect a change in the Administration's priorities? 

Answer: Given the current fiscal environment. tough decisions had to bc made 

particularly for investments in new or additional rental units. The 2014 Budget proposes 

$20 million for expansion of Project Rental Assistance (PRA), $80 million less than that fiscal 

year 2013 funding leveL to fund operating assistance contracts to support approximately 700 new 

units through grants to State housing agencies. With Congressional approval, appropriations for 

PRA may be supplemented by offsetting collections from project residual receipt accounts and 

reprogramming of recaptured funds, which together may total upwards of$25 million. While 

modest, the fiscal year 2014 request builds on the fiscal year 2012811 PRA Demo, which 

funded 13 grantees that will produce more than 3,500 units of supportive housing, and 

approximately $100 million in fiscal year 2013 appropriations that are expected to fund more 

than 3,500 additional units. 
228

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD FROM CONGRESSMAN QUIGLEY 

Mr. Quigley #1 

HOPW A Program 

Question: We've heard that the Department is looking to consolidate the Housing 

Opportunities for Persons With AIDS (HOPW A) program into the homeless assistance program, 

I believe that this move has the potential to hurt the tight against AIDS in this country, We 

should be increasing the focus, not decreasing it. We are getting closer and closer to an AIDS 

Free Generation, and housing plays a huge part in that. Can you explain the department's thinking 

behind the potential consolidation? 

Answer: Yes, as I mentioned in my appearance before the Committee in April, the planned 

action is about staffing and oversight of the program within I-IUD, not the programmatic dollars 

themselves. The 2014 Budget provides $332 million for the HOPWA program, and HUD 

continues to support and defend the program as an important investment. To help address the 

fiscal challenges presented by sequestration and for programmatic improvement reasons, the 

Department is planning to move forward with bringing together the staffing for the HOPW A 

program with its other special needs housing programs. As the epidemic has evolved, more and 

more people are struggling with HlV and AIDS who are also at imminent risk or are actually 

already homeless. 

In an effort to more effectively leverage funding, the Department is seeking to establish 

greater integration ofHOPWA program activities that complement HUD's efforts to prevent and 

end homelessness through Continuum of Care coordinated planning, centralized intake and 

assessment, and use of Homeless Management Information Systems (HMIS). This integration 

will better align the work that is being done on the ground with tamilies and individuals with 

HlVand AIDS and the work that HUD is doing around homelessncss. Organizationally. HUD is 

proposing to consolidate the Office of HIV I AIDS Housing as a division with the Office of 

Special Needs Assistance Programs. This action entails an administrative change related to the 

organizational placement and management ofthc HOPWA program. The program will continue 

to retain its separate program status and funding appropriation in recognition of the critical 

housing support it provides to vulnerable populations, many of whom face significant health 

crises and multiple concurrent health and economic challenges. 

This administrative change will further support three broader elTorts: First HUD is one of 

six Federal lead agencies that collaborated to develop the National H1V/AIDS Strategy for the 

United States, released in July 20 I O. The agencies continue to align their programs to improve 

and better coordinate IllV-related services across the country. The national strategy recognizes, 

as you do, the direct impact of housing on increased client entry and retention in mv care and 

has a focus on increasing housing for persons with HIV, of which the HOPWA program plays a 

fundamental role. Second, HUD is one of 19 Federal lead agencies that collaborated in 

developing Opening Doors: The Federal Strategic Plan to Prevent and End Homelessness. As a 
229

part of this effort, HUD invigorated local action -including through HOPWA grantees--that 

address the challenges of homeless ness. And, finally, the Administration's forthcoming 

legislative proposal to revise the HOPW A funding formula and implement a modernization plan 

would help increase the use of short-term housing interventions in coordination with homeless 

programs, and would better target federal housing resources to those most impacted by HIV. 

The Offices ofHIV/AIDS Housing and Special Needs Assistance Programs report to Mark 

Johnston, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs Programs. Prior to the establishment of 

the Office ofHIV/AIDS Housing by former Secretary Henry Cisneros in 1994, the HOPWA 

program was organizationally within the Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs. 

It is envisioned that this closer alignment of HOPW A and homcless grant resources will 

make more strategic and efficient use of HIV dedicatcd housing resources both progranunatically 

(community level) and organizationally (within HUD). 

o Organizationally (within HUD), this changc would foster stronger collaboration and 

facilitate knowledge sharing and capacity of dedicated management and staffing to 

identify and support cross-cutting and joint initiatives to complement programmatic 

business practices. 

o Programmatically (community level), this change would facilitate a local and state 

community level service delivery "systems change" in order to synergize the 

targeting, coordination, and provision of housing assistance and case 

management/supportive services to special needs populations among homeless and 

AIDS service providers. 

o Furthermore, HUD believes that this change would eventually affect strategic 

planning among local service providers to pool and/or leverage HOPW A and 

homeless assistance grant resources. 
230

Question: HOPW A is already facing reduced staffing levels, how does the Department 

plan on maintaining proper focus on the needs of HIV / AIDS community? 

Answer: The proposed HOPWA Division will continue to provide continuity with respect 

to program administration and policy development for the HOPW A program. The division will 

continue to serve as the Department's program expert on the housing challenges of individuals 

and their families living with HIV/AIDS, in addition to providing coordination and 

representation with federal agency partners to implement the President's National HIV/AIDS 

Strategy. Departmental coordination of HOPW A and homeless assistance grants resources will 

likely facilitate more inclusive local strategic planning and decision-making by AIDS service and 

Continuum of Care organizations in identifying and prioritizing local project activities to address 

worst case housing needs, particularly for those homeless living with HIV/AIDS. 

The HOPW A Division will benefit from the existing management structure and staffing 

resources within the Office of Special Needs Assistance Programs that will leverage these 

additional staffing resources to collaborate and facilitate cross program coordination with 

HOPWA policy, programmatic, and technical assistance initiatives. Furthermore, this closer 

organizational alignment and collaboration is likely to foster greater policy and programmatic 

coordination in working with communities across this country to address unruet housing needs of 

those living with HIV and the homeless. 
231

Mr. Quigley #2a 

Community Development Block Grants 

Question: Community Development Block Grants have been a vital source of federal 

funding for my city, funding local community development programs such as affordable 

housing, anti-poverty programs, and infrastructure development. The flexibility given to state 

and local governments for the use of the funding is especially helpful. [understand that we are 

face significant budget challenges, but I am disturbed by the low funding level for CDBG in the 

President's budget. What is HUD's view of the future ofCDBO, considering that the proposed 

budget level will reduce CDBO to 1976 levels, cutting the program by nearly 30% in just three 

years? 

Answer: The Department continues to support CDBO and recognizes its importance to 

local and state governments across the nation. However, the FY 2014 budget request for CDBO 

reflects the difficult budgetary situation facing domestic discretionary programs such as CDBO 

and the tough choices that must be made in weighing the needs of various programs administered 

by the Department. The Department will seek to enhance CDBO's impact at the local level 

through increased technical assistance. revised planning processes, stronger targeting and 

improved accountability provisions. Further, HUD has proposed several reforms to CDBO and 

intends to explore with stakeholders opportunities for additional changes to improve program 

performance and effectiveness. 
232

Mr. Quigley #2b 

Community Development Block Grants 

Question: What is the justification for establishing a new grant program, the 

Neighborhood Stabilization Initiative. within the Community Development Fund. while reducing 

the funding for CDRG formula grants? 

Answer: The proposal to establish the Neighborhood Stabilization Initiative (NSI) should 

be viewed as an attempt to expand the positive impact of the Neighborhood Stabilization 

Program (NSP), which was first funded in 2008. NSP provided almost $7 billion in assistance to 

states, local governments and non-profit entities to address the effects of abandoned and 

foreclosed housing in the nation's communities. The $200 million in competitive funding 

proposed for NSI would build upon the first three rounds ofNSP and target communities most 

negatively impacted by abandoned and foreclosed property and would fund specific activities 

that support neighborhood stabilization. 
233

Mr. Quigley #2c 

Community Development Block Grants 

Question: What will be the focus of the Neighborhood Stabilization Initiative grants and 

how will they be awarded? 

Answer: The NSI competition would be open to any community that: 

1. Continues to have significant numbers and/or concentration of foreclosed. vacant. and 

abandoned properties(based on the most recent available data): 

2. Will use the funds to carry out neighborhood stabilization projects and activities that respond to 

market conditions. including land banking and demolition: and 

3. Demonstrates implementation capacity. leverage/matching funds. partnerships. and proposed 

positive impact. 

NSI grants will be awarded in a national competition. 
234

Mr. Quigley #3 

Project-Based Section 8 Housing 

Question: The FY14 HUD budget requests $10.2 billion for Project-Based Section 8 

I lousing, stating that this will provide 12 months of full funding for rental assistance 

contracts to private owners. It is my understanding that the department needs an additional 

$1 billion to actually end the short-funding of these contracts. Is that correct? Will $10.2 

billion be enough to end short-funding of contracts in FY2014') 

Answer: The Department" s FY 2014 appropriation request of $10.3 billion provides 

12 months of funding for all Project-Based Rental Assistance (PBRA) contracts. It does 

not. however. backfill the shortfall caused by the FY 2013 appropriations level. HUD 

currently estimates that an additional $1.2 billion would be required in FY 2013 to fund all 

contracts for a full 12 months. 
235

Mr. Quigley #4 

Project-Based Voucher Program 

Question: The Budget makes reference to Rental Assistance Reform that will impact 

HUD's three largest rental assistance programs. The Budget also references changes to the 

Pr~ject-Based Vouchcr program. Can you give the committee details about the proposed changes you 

are making to that program? 

Answer: The Administration plans to submit to Congress a comprehensive legislative 

package that includes improvements to the Project-Based Voucher (PBV) program. These 

proposed changes would simplify administration and increase flexibility in order to maximize 

public housing authority participation in the PBV program. Further. they would leverage the 

PBV program model to address vulnerable populations. such as homeless families or veterans. 
236

Mr. Quigley#5 

Project-Based Scction 8 Program 

Question: Your budget proposal for the Project-Based Section 8 program includes a 

Flexible Portfolio Demonstration that would give owners regulatory and administrative relief in 

exchange for long-term affordability. If done right, this would be of great value to many mission 

oriented owners that provide safe and affordable housing to low-income households. Can you 

give the committee some idea of some of the flexibility or administrative relief that you are 

proposing in this Demonstration? 

Answer: The Office of Multifamily Housing intends to conduct a demonstration that 

provides participating high-performing project owners and sponsors the opportunity to receive 

greater management and reporting flexibilities. In exchange for these flexibilities, owners must 

commit to achieve long-run cost savings in HUD's insured and assisted housing portfolios and to 

maintain the affordability of participating properties. HUD is also developing a plan to address 

the unique servicing needs of properties in the demonstration. More specific program 

flexibilities are being developed and will be published for public comment within the next few 

months. 
237

Mr. Quigley #6 

Sustainable Communities Initiative 

Question: Can you explain the process oftransitioning from the Sustainable Communities 

Initiative to the Office of Economic Resilience? Will the focus of the grants change? 

Answer: When HUD established the Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities 

(OSHC) in 2009, we were piloting a new approach to capacity building. With 4 years of 

experience and 152 grants that cover 144 million pcople in 48 states, we have a much better 

sense of what challenges urban and rural communities face, what local elected officials, and 

business leaders are concerned about, and how the federal government can be an effective 

partner. This has led to significant changes in the focus of this work and the approaches we 

propose to take going forward. 

The Office of Economic Resilience (OER) will focus its Integrated Planning and 

Investment Grants on assisting communities and regions to align their economic development 

goals with their community development and infrastructure investment priorities. This broad 

goal is similar to the focus of the original grants, but many of the details of how these grants will 

actually work have changed in response to our experience. 

Using lessons learned from the execution of the original grants, the Integrated Planning and 

Investment Grants will place a greater emphasis on setting and measuring performance, reducing 

redundancy in federally-funded planning activities, identifying implementation investments that 

are most likely to rebuild economies, and identifying how to better leverage federal formula 

funds. 

Similar to fiscal year 20 10 and 20 II Sustainable Communities grantees, the focus will 

further emphasize the economic development aspect to ensure that regions and communities can 

compete on a global scalc by attracting businesses that have the option oflocating to any area. 

Question: Why is the program being moved to the Office of Community Plmming and 

Development? 

Answer: OSHC has helped to incent creative, cost-effective, and outcomc-oriented 

investments through targeting of competitive funding to grant applicants that propose to make 

their communities more energy efficient, livable, and resilient 

The charge now is to integrate OER goals and themes with HUD's core programs, 

including the Department's largest and most flexible block grants. To that end, we will shift 

PTEs to CPD to cover the OER team. 

Whilc OER will reside in CPD, the team will continue to work across all of HUD's 

programs and with other Federal domestic agencies, to continue to remove barriers, streamline 

the usc of federal funds, and seek out ways to reduce the redundancies of federal programs. 

(239)

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 2013. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WITNESS

MICHAEL HUERTA, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Mr. LATHAM. The hearing will come to order. And this morning 

we welcome FAA administrator Michael Huerta to testify on the 

FAA’s budget request for fiscal year 2014. This is the administrator’s second appearance before the Subcommittee and his first appearance as the Senate-confirmed administrator of the FAA. 

I think the biggest question on everyone’s mind today is sequestration and the effects or furloughs on the air traffic control system. While I firmly support and pursue the principal goals of 

achieving targeted reforms to reduce government spending and balancing the federal budget, I do not support across-the-board cuts 

like those mandated in the Budget Control Act. These cuts simply 

punish everyone, rather than specifically target the great number 

of outdated, wasteful, and duplicative functions being funded with 

our taxpayer dollars. In short, arbitrary, nontargeted, across-theboard cuts are no way to run a government. However, an acrossthe-board sequester was what the president proposed and we are 

now operating under this law. 

In an effort to avoid the arbitrary $1.2 trillion in cuts mandated 

by the Budget Control Act, I have twice voted with the majority of 

members in the House to pass common sense legislation that would 

have replaced sequestration with targeted spending cuts of an 

equal dollar amount. Unfortunately, the U.S. Senate never considered anything that would have replaced sequestration with targeted spending cuts of an equal dollar amount. Unfortunately, the 

U.S. Senate never considered either of these bills; thus, sequestration was triggered. 

Further, this goes to show that we need to return to regular 

order and consider appropriation bills in their entirety and not rely 

on continuing resolutions to fund the government. Under a CR, 

there is no way for us to prioritize cuts or protect programs related 

to the safety of the American public. We have questions today 

about how the FAA evaluated the safety impacts of these decisions, 

the transparency displayed, and how you got to your furlough and 

contract decisions. And finally, what is the FAA doing to mitigate 

these effects after two days of disrupted air traffic activity. The 

safety of our air space cannot be subject to political posturing. 

As for the business of the president’s fiscal year 2014 request, 

the FAA is requesting 15.6 billion in discretionary budget authority, which is a decrease of 350 million below fiscal year 2012, mostly due to reduction of the Airport Grants Program. The president 
240

has also requested $3 billion in mandatory funding for the FAA in 

the fourth round of a 50 billion stimulus request. Until you propose 

a pay-for, we cannot give this request serious consideration. 

Similarly, the president has chosen to include new and increased 

fees in this budget that have been rejected year after year. I also 

have questions regarding the FAA’s ability to meet its mission ensuring safe air travel while modernizing our nation’s air traffic control system through NextGen investments. The FAA has seen a 

number of schedule slippages and cost overruns in its NextGen programs, which could threaten air space modernization at a time 

when our first mandate in Congress is to reduce spending and 

bring our budget to balance. 

Finally, I would like to commend you for your leadership and 

open communication with Congress as you met some recent challenges such as working to resolve the Boeing Dreamliner battery 

issue. I am hopeful we can have a similar cooperative and open dialogue regarding the implementation of sequestration. We look forward to your testimony. 

I would like to recognize Ranking Member Mr. Pastor for any 

opening remarks. 

Mr. PASTOR. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

I would like to welcome FAA administrator, Michael Huerta. 

We are starting to feel the effects of sequestration on our system. 

FAA must cut more than 630 million to its programs, more than 

485 million in operations alone. Every employee will be furloughed 

up to 11 days and nearly 150 contract towers are threatened to be 

cut down. Since Sunday, 10 percent of FAA’s workforce has been 

furloughed each day, and that will continue each and every day as 

long as sequestration is in effect. We are already seeing delays in 

the air traffic system. On its worst day last year, the air traffic control system had 3,000 delayed flights. FAA estimates that as many 

as 6,700 flights will be delayed daily. 

No one should be surprised by these impacts. Secretary National 

Airspace System predicted delays in February, and our ranking 

member, Ms. Lowey, issued a report early on highlighting the potential impacts of sequestration. And this is not just a problem for 

fiscal year 2013. Sequestration will hit 2014 as well. We must sign 

a comprehensive government-wide solution as you have recommended, Mr. Chairman. 

I know the administration would agree with me that the FAA’s 

most important asset is its workforce. Every controller, inspector, 

airport grant administrator, manager, and rank and file employee, 

is critical to FAA’s success. I hope that we can find a way to do 

better by them and reach a resolution to sequestration without 

raiding one account to the detriment of another. Put another way, 

we should not spare one set of employees only to sacrifice others. 

We are here today to discuss FAA’s fiscal year 2014 budget request. With the exception of the AIP proposal, it freezes funding at 

roughly the fiscal year 2012 levels. I look forward to your testimony, Mr. Huerta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Pastor. 

We are pleased to have the chairman of the full committee here 

this morning for his statement. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Director, welcome. 
241

We have got a lot of questions for you this morning. The first one 

is going to be how come you did not tell us about this beforehand, 

the sequester impact on the layoffs, the furloughs? Not a word. Not 

a breath. You did not forewarn us that this was coming. You did 

not ask advice about how we should handle it. You did not inform 

the Congress of this sequester impact and what you plan to do 

about it. In fact, the entire administration has done the same 

thing. They have not told the Congress how the sequester impact 

will impact each agency. And the Congress cannot operate like 

that. This imperial attitude on the part of the administration, and 

you are the most recent example of that imperialism, is disgusting. 

And then to turn around and try to blame the difficulties in flying 

on the Congress, having not informed us of what you planned to 

do, is unacceptable. 

I hope you have some answers for us today. But the first question I want answered is why did you not tell us about it beforehand. What else are you planning to do that you have not told us 

about? And why is it that the administration will not come to the 

table and talk about a substitute for sequestering? There are all 

sorts of ideas floating around, and yet the administration refuses 

to come to the table and talk about it. Instead, they simply start 

shutting down airports, if you will, closing towers, and now, furloughing airline controllers, airport controllers. 

It would be easy for the administration to come forward and say, 

‘‘Okay, let us talk. Let us see if there is a way around all these 

impacts of sequester.’’ I do not like sequester. It is across the board. 

It is unintelligent. It cuts good things with bad. The people elected 

the Congress and the administration to choose the good things 

from the bad things. And yet we have, with sequester, abdicated 

that responsibility. But it is time for the administration, and you 

are the first, to come forward and talk about ways to avoid sequester. And as long as you refuse to do that, the American public is 

going to suffer. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We have the ranking member of the full committee, Ms. Lowey. 

You are recognized. 

Ms. LOWEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome Administrator Huerta. 

Employee furloughs at the FAA necessitated by the failure of 

Congress to replace ill-advised across-the-board cuts are causing inconvenience and economic losses to individuals, families, businesses, in New York and across the country. But frankly, it is mystifying to me that some are surprised by these delays or blame 

FAA for Congress’s failure. 

On February 11th, the Department of Transportation told Congress that given the magnitude of budget cuts to the FAA, ‘‘it will 

be impossible to avoid significant employee furloughs,’’ requiring a 

reduction in air travel to a level that can be safely managed by the 

remaining staff and causing delays and disruptions across the 

country. Without action by Congress, this situation will get much 

worse before it gets better. FAA estimates the number of daily 

flight delays will be more than double the highest level of delays 

on a single day in 2012. Across-the-board budget cuts are having 
242

a severe impact on American families’ incomes, as well as services 

and investments critical to our economic competitiveness. We must 

replace these mindless cuts with a renewed focus on jobs, economic 

growth, and a balanced package of long-term deficit reduction. 

I agree that this has been very disruptive, but it is amazing to 

me that those who are responsible for the sequester do not understand that we have to get rid of the sequester. We are blaming on 

for the impact on vital services. I do hope the Congress can get together in a bipartisan way. We have not had a conference on the 

budget. We are ready to move as appropriators, and I know the 

chairman and I can move effectively together. But unless we get 

started and start working together, the reality of the sequester is 

seen. The sequester took place beginning March 1st. Here we are— 

March, April, May. I cannot understand why people are surprised 

that this sequester has serious impacts. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentlewoman. 

After the administrator’s opening statement we will proceed with 

the five-minute rounds, alternating in the standard order. Administrator, we invite you to present your opening statement. Your full 

statement will be included in the record, and you are recognized for 

five minutes. Welcome. 

Mr. HUERTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chairman 

Latham, Ranking Member Pastor, Chairman Rogers, Ranking 

Member Lowey. 

I am pleased to have the opportunity to be here today to discuss 

FAA’s budget for fiscal year 2014. As you are aware, this is my 

first appearance before you as the confirmed administrator of the 

FAA. We have a great number of challenges and opportunities 

ahead, and I look forward to a long and effective relationship with 

this Subcommittee. 

The FAA’s fiscal year 2014 budget request is $15.6 billion. This 

budget upholds our critical safety programs, while also deploying 

key NextGen benefits to our stakeholders and modernizing our 

aviation infrastructure. It does this at funding levels that are $351 

million lower than in fiscal year 2012, a 2.2 percent decrease, 

which is part of the president’s overall effort to reduce the deficit. 

The FAA’s proposed budget for 2014 assumes a long-term solution to our nation’s budget deficit and no sequester. The 2014 proposed budget would allow us to maintain staffing for air traffic control and aviation safety. It would allow us to maintain capital investment in both airport infrastructure and FAA facilities and 

equipment and fund research and development. 

The budget requests $1 billion for NextGen, which is an increase 

of about 7 percent above 2012. This request would help us continue 

to mitigate congestion in busy airspace above metropolitan areas, 

and it would help us with the continued deployment of radio 

transceivers that allow us to use very precise satellite-based information to control air traffic. 

The FAA is requesting $9.7 billion in our Operations account. 

This represents an increase of just about a half a percent above the 

fiscal year 2012 level. This request will enable us to run the agency 

on a day-to-day basis. It ensures the safe operation of the airlines 

and the certification of new aviation products. It would also en-
243

hance the safety of the commercial space transportation industry 

and provide overall policy oversight and management of our airspace. The Operations budget includes an additional $30 million to 

maintain and operate the new En Route Automation Modernization 

(ERAM) system that became operational over the last two years. 

ERAM is at the heart of NextGen. It helps advance our transition 

from a ground-based system of air traffic control to a satellite system of air traffic management. 

The 2014 budget also allows the FAA to meet the dual challenge 

of maintaining the capacity and safety of the current system while 

moving forward with our comprehensive modernization and transformation efforts. The majority of the $2.8 billion requested for facilities and equipment is to sustain legacy areas. This includes 

aging infrastructure, power systems, information technology, navigational aids, and weather systems. 

This year’s request for Research, Engineering, and Development is $166 million, a decrease of 1 percent from 2012. We intend to 

continue critical research in NextGen and in other areas, such as 

fire research and safety, propulsion and fuel systems, advanced 

materials research, alternative fuels, aging aircraft, and unmanned 

aircraft systems. 

Our budget emphasizes cost efficiency and reflects the hard 

choices we must make to provide the most benefit to the flying public. As a result, we are proposing to modify the mix of funding 

available for airport development projects. The budget would allow 

commercial service airports to increase passenger facility charges 

from the current maximum of $4.50 to $8.00. This gives airports 

greater flexibility to generate more of their own revenue, and it 

allow us to reduce our request for the ongoing airport grants program by about $450 million. This change focuses federal resources 

on smaller airports that do not have the passenger volume to generate their own revenue, yet are still important to our nation’s air 

transportation network. 

The President’s 2014 budget request represents a balanced approach to achieving a long-term solution to our nation’s budgetary 

challenges. This is critical when we consider the impact of the sequester on our aviation system. The cuts required by the sequester 

forced us to slash contract expenses and furlough 47,000 of our employees for up to one day every two weeks. 

With 10 percent fewer hours available from each employee, there 

are impacts on all FAA operations. At air traffic facilities, this imposes limits on the amount of air traffic we can safely allow to take 

off and to land. It means that our safety inspectors will work fewer 

hours and it will take longer to certify new aircraft for the market. 

I want to emphasize that as we undergo the difficult process of 

implementing these deep cuts, we refuse to sacrifice safety, even if 

it means less efficient operations. Since February, we have publicly 

described the possible effects of the sequester, and over the past 

few weeks we have been working with our industry partners, including the airlines, to share more detailed information on the impacts we expect at our nation’s largest airports. We are tracking 

airport delays throughout the system and making adjustments 

where possible to minimize delays. It is my hope that we can work 
244

together to rally around our nation’s air transportation system and 

protect the great contribution that civil aviation makes to our economy.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would be 

pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you very much. And I guess we are all concerned about the air traffic controllers and the effect that that is 

having.

You believe that you have done everything possible to minimize 

the effects of the furloughs? 

Mr. HUERTA. I do. 

Mr. Chairman, we have to reduce our budget by $637 million between now and September 30th. Under the rules of the sequester, 

the Airport Grant Program was exempted, as were all the grant 

programs of the Department of Transportation. What that means 

is that it falls disproportionately on the operating side of the budget. We are projecting savings from the furlough of approximately 

$220 million. And so what that means is that we have cut more 

heavily in nonpay areas—contracts, information technology, travel, 

and a wide variety of other nonpay expenses. To reach the large 

number that we need by September 30th, we have no choice but 

to look at furloughs as well. 

Mr. LATHAM. Can you assure the American people that what you 

are doing will have no effect on safety? 

Mr. HUERTA. It will have no effect on safety but what will suffer 

will be efficiency. When we have to reduce the number of controllers that we have available to handle air traffic, it means that we 

have to do things like combine sectors, reduce arrival rates at 

major airports and the capacity of our major En Route facilities. 

The result from that are ground delay programs, flow control measures, all of which have impacts on the efficiency of the system. But 

what we are focused on first and foremost is to maintain safe operations.

Mr. LATHAM. I was taken back at the same time we are talking 

about cuts to new or essential services on air traffic control. The 

secretary announced that he was giving out $474 million in Tiger 

Grants for livable and sustainable communities from the department, which is not authorized, not defined in law anywhere even 

what that is. Do you have any ability to transfer any of his money? 

Have you requested any money to be transferred? 

Mr. HUERTA. Under the framework of the sequester act, we have 

to cut equally across programs, projects, an activities. The way that 

works out in the FAA’s budget is, as you know, Mr. Chairman, we 

have four colors of money—our operations account, our Facilities 

and Equipment account, our Research Engineering and Development account, and then the Airport Improvement Program. Within 

each of those accounts there are further subdivisions. The largest 

share is our Operations account, and that is organized according to 

the FAA’s lines of business. For example, Air Traffic, Aviation Safety, Commercial Space. 

As I said before, the Airport Improvement Program is exempt, 

therefore, the cuts are applied equally across the other three colors 

of money. That means that they disproportionately fall on operations.
245

Operations represents some 61 percent of total FAA appropriations, and of that amount, approximately 70 percent of it is pay for 

the employees that perform the important safety critical functions. 

To get to the numbers that we need to get to, while we have cut 

quite dramatically in the areas of contracts and other nonpay expenses, we are nonetheless forced with the choice of needing to reduce the amount spent on salaries. That is where the furlough 

comes in. 

Mr. LATHAM. To my question, have you asked for any transfer 

authority of the funds that obviously the department has got hundreds of millions of dollars sitting in other accounts there. Have 

you asked for any transfer? This is from a program that is not authorized, has on definition, and it is money sitting there supposedly.

Mr. HUERTA. I cannot speak to what is available in other parts 

of the Department of Transportation budget, but within—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Is there any discussion at the Department about 

maybe making a request to transfer money into essential services? 

Mr. HUERTA. I think what the administration has been quite 

clear on is that the sequester being an across-the-board impact, we 

agree with you, it is not an appropriate way to run the government. But, we are complying with the law as it has currently been 

passed.

Mr. LATHAM. Is there no discussion about asking to transfer—— 

Mr. HUERTA. There have been many options. 

Mr. LATHAM [continuing]. High priorities? 

Mr. HUERTA. There have been many options floated, both in the 

Congress and within the public generally about opportunities for 

transfer. But until something is actually enacted, we have to live 

with the law as it is currently passed. 

Mr. LATHAM. So you have not asked for any authority to transfer—you have not—the money that is sitting there in other accounts?

Mr. HUERTA. We have taken full advantage of the flexibilities 

that we have. 

Mr. LATHAM. That is not my question. 

Mr. HUERTA. As I said, there have been many discussions that 

have taken place about transfer authority, but until something is 

enacted, we do not have any reason to plan for it. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. You are still not answering the question, obviously.

Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. PASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A year and a half ago when the 12 wise men failed to complete 

their work and we voted on the Budget Act that passed the House 

and the Senate, sequestration was a possibility. And there was always, I guess an expectation that it would not become a probability. But in, I think, January of this year, OMB started at least 

issuing memorandums to the agencies that it may be a probability 

and as we are getting closer into March. 

Now, when did the FAA, with its limitations and its flexibility, 

was allowed by law and policy begin preparing for sequestration? 

Mr. HUERTA. We began preparing with the start of the fiscal year 

as we saw it as a possibility. 
246

Mr. PASTOR. October? 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. But those efforts really became much more urgent after we started at the beginning of the calendar year when 

we were seeing that this was becoming a distinct possibility. At 

that time, as you pointed out, Mr. Pastor, the Office of Management and Budget provided guidance to all agencies within the federal government, and we began looking at our planning. 

In February, the Secretary and I both spoke about what these 

impacts would look like. We did talk at that time about a very high 

likelihood, in fact, a need to furlough our employees and the operational impacts that that would have on large facilities. At the 

same time, we also talked about the need to reduce our contract 

expenditures, and that got us into the conversation about contract 

tower operations. 

Throughout all of this, our focus has been on managing these 

cuts in such a way that we minimize to the extent possible the impact of these on the largest number of travelers. But at the same 

time, we have to achieve the savings of $637 million between now 

and the end of the fiscal year. 

As we have worked through this, what we are attempting to do 

is mitigate the impacts as best we can. For example, we canceled 

a training program altogether for a new class of controllers that 

would otherwise be taking place at the aeronautical center. That is 

our pipeline for new controllers. We have significantly canceled or 

significantly slashed other training, as well as discretionary travel 

and discretionary activity so that we can focus on other activities. 

Controllers have been asked to return to their home facilities, 

this takes them away from collaborative workgroups that are focused on implementing new technologies. It enables us to mitigate 

the impacts of the loss of controller hours due to furloughs. And so 

we have been taking aggressive actions to try to mitigate the impact of this, but there are impacts. 

Mr. PASTOR. In the memorandum that they sent to the agencies 

they said to use any available flexibility to reduce operational risks 

and minimize impacts on the agency’s core mission and services of 

the American people. Core mission is obviously the air traffic system. What flexibility have you made yourself available so that the 

core mission is not minimized? 

Mr. HUERTA. We have transferred Operating resources to the extent allowed by law, 2 percent, from other operations accounts into 

protecting our air traffic and our aviation safety core responsibilities. So what suffers as a result of that are some of our longer 

term activities, such as investments and research activities associated with NextGen. That is a tradeoff that we think is important 

to make with the goal of preserving safety and the efficiency of the 

system to the extent we can. 

Mr. LATHAM. In an article I think I read yesterday, it talked 

about how you have furloughed air traffic controllers but in order 

to ensure safety, that you have controllers being paid overtime. 

And so the issue is really having and meeting the objective of the 

core mission. 

Mr. HUERTA. We have dramatically reduced all scheduled overtime, and we are preserving overtime really to deal with an emergency situation. 
247

For example, there might be a situation where due to illness or 

other activities that we do not have the expected complement of 

staffing at a facility. That, combined with the furlough, can lead to 

a dramatic and significant operational impact, and so through the 

judicious use of overtime we are able to mitigate that somewhat. 

Nonetheless, we still have 10 percent fewer available hours to 

schedule in these facilities. 

Mr. PASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Pastor. 

I recognize the full committee chairman, Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding this 

hearing.

There are those who say that you are imposing these furloughs, 

bringing pain to the American people, for the purpose of shifting 

political blame for the difficulties caused. A little bit like shutting 

down the Yellowstone National Park to draw attention to the problem.

What do you say about that? 

Mr. HUERTA. That is not true. We are focused on maintaining 

our core operational and safety responsibilities, and doing it to the 

best extent that we can, given the constraints of the furlough. 

Recognizing that 70 percent of our operations budget is people 

and that the FAA is an operating agency, our effort has been to do 

everything that we can to cut in other areas before we hit our safety/critical functions that are carried out by people. Those are air 

traffic control, maintaining the airway system, and maintaining the 

highest levels of aviation safety. 

The hardest thing that we have to do is reduce these hours. But 

in order to hit the target we need to hit—we do not really have any 

choice.

Mr. ROGERS. All of this is a surprise to the Committee, to the 

Subcommittee, to the Congress, to the world. We read about it in 

the newspaper. And this Subcommittee and the Appropriations 

Committee, of course, is the Committee that has to find ways to 

fund the government’s operations. And yet you did not tell us about 

what you planned to do. How come? 

Mr. HUERTA. Mr. Chairman, we have been talking about this 

since February. We have talked about our need to reduce our contract expenditures and thereby to withdraw federal funding and 

close federal contract towers. At that time we also talked about the 

need to furlough our employees, and we said that that would lead 

to significant delays of up to 90 minutes at major hub facilities. As 

our planning has continued and we have done more granular analysis, those discussions have continued, and now we are at the place 

where we actually have to take the actions in order to achieve the 

savings.

These are all bad choices. I will be the first to acknowledge that. 

But in order to comply with the guidelines with the sequester law, 

we have to take these actions. 

Mr. ROGERS. I wish you had told us earlier so we would have had 

a chance to plan and perhaps to write or find a way against the 

problem.

Now, when you decided to close those 149 contract towers, you 

said that your goal was to minimize the disruption to the max-
248

imum number of travelers. But when you decided to find savings 

and labor costs just now, you imposed 11 days of furloughs across 

all FAA employees regardless of how critical those employees are 

to the mission of safe, efficient, air traffic control. Can you explain? 

It seems to me that we had some contradictory reasoning when it 

came to decisions regarding contract towers versus the FAA air 

control workforce who are furloughed equally, no matter how operational essential they are. Can you explain that? 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. Let me take first the contract towers. Our 

focus on contracts was with the intent of minimizing the amount 

of furlough days that our employees would have to suffer through. 

In looking at our contracts, we focused on the largest areas of 

where we could achieve contract savings, and the third largest of 

those contracts are expenditures in our contract tower program. We 

decided to look at the lowest activity facilities, those towers that 

have fewer than 150,000 annual operations and 10,000 commercial 

operations. All but one of these towers currently operate for some 

portion of the day in a non-towered capacity, so they have existing 

rules on how to operate as a non-towered airfield. And so in the 

contract area, we felt that this was the most efficient way and the 

most effective way to achieve the savings we needed to achieve. 

Turning next to the impacts on the FAA’s workforce. Our effort 

on the contract side was to bring the furlough number down to 11. 

To ensure that we had to realize no more than one per pay period 

or 10 percent of the available hours. As we looked at the National 

Airspace System we did, in fact, consider whether we should look 

at a differential impact between facilities. We came to the conclusion that the National Airspace System is an interconnected network. Weather phenomena or how aircraft are moved throughout 

the system not make any distinction between large air facilities 

and small air facilities. An airplane may move from a small facility 

to a major hub to another major hub to another small facility. Its 

crew in the course of a day will travel from a wide variety of other 

facilities. The purpose of this is for the airline to maximize the use 

of their asset and of their available employee hours. Conducting 

furloughs in an unequal fashion would still lead to disruption and 

delays throughout the system because of these network impacts 

and the relationships between the larger and the smaller facilities. 

Second, the effect of the sequester is basically a pay cut for controllers and technicians; to do this in any other way would cause 

even more disruption in the system. If you look at the long history 

of pay cuts in the airline industry, every single one has been applied equally, to like groups of employees. Employees at different 

facilities still have to work together, and that is difficult when you 

are treating them inequitably. Over 70 percent of our Operations 

budget is devoted to payroll, and the agency cannot put itself in the 

position of choosing winners and losers between airlines and where 

their hubs are located and geographic areas of the country relative 

to other areas. 

Mr. ROGERS. One final question, Mr. Chairman. 

Air traffic control is funded in the air traffic organization within 

FAA which has $2.2 in nonpayroll activities, including consultants, 

contracts, travel. Why were you not able to find $387 million in sequester savings in that very sizeable nonpayroll budget? 
249

Mr. HUERTA. We looked at our nonpayroll budget and we have 

had dramatic reductions in that. Let us take that consultant line 

item that you reference, sir. 

The largest single consultant contract is a services contract that 

provides telecommunications infrastructure between all FAA facilities. Everything in that category are nonconstruction contracts. 

Our second largest contract is aviation flight service stations. 

And our third largest is our contract tower program. 

Where we have achieved cost savings are things like training, 

travel, and within information technology as a result of efficiencies. 

But we simply could not get to the number we need without also 

looking at salaries. We imposed a hiring freeze that has been in 

place since the start of the year, that became a total freeze at the 

beginning of March. We have canceled contracts with all of our contract employees, and all of our temporary employees have been laid 

off. All with the goal of minimizing the impact on payroll expenditures of FAA employees. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Ms. Lowey. 

Ms. LOWEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. Secretary for your presentation. 

Frankly my colleagues, it is mystifying to me that some are surprised by these delays or blame the FAA for Congress’s failure. 

And I would like to repeat again that on February 11th, the Department of Transportation told Congress that given the magnitude 

of budget cuts to the FAA, ‘‘It will be impossible to avoid significant 

employee furloughs requiring a reduction in air travel to a level 

that can be safely managed by the remaining staff and causing 

delays and disruptions across the country.’’ 

We are hearing today that some of my colleagues believe we 

should exempt the air traffic controllers, technicians, and inspectors from furloughs. However, I have not heard anything. We have 

not heard any proposals to do something about the requirement 

that the FAA reduced $485 million in fiscal year 2013 from its operating budget due to sequestration. I am laughing because I find 

most of my constituents are all upset about what is happening at 

the airport, but not only can they not pronounce sequester; they do 

not really understand what it means but they are certainly learning the impact. 

Can you tell us if these groups of employees were to be exempt 

from the overall furlough requirements: (1) What impact would it 

have on the rest of your workforce? And what impact would this 

have on how you implement sequestration for fiscal year 2014 for 

fiscal year 2014? 

Now, I want to say again that I know the chairman and I would 

like to work together. The Budget Committee—the House has 

passed a budget, the Senate has passed a budget—they still have 

not gone to conference. Now, if and fact they do not go to conference, Chairman Rogers and I will proceed; however, if we do not 

do something specifically to roll back sequestration, what impact 

would this have on how you implement sequestration in fiscal year 

2014? We have seen what sequestration is doing right now. 

Could you please respond? 
250

Mr. HUERTA. Sure. Regarding your first question, in terms of 

classifications of employees and if there were to be an effort to exempt certain classes of employees, our pay account in our Operations budget represents about 70 percent of the total. Of that, 

some 40 percent pays for air traffic controllers. An additional 14 

percent is technicians and supervisors. Those are the people that 

maintain airway information, radar, and other facilities to ensure 

that it actually works to deliver air traffic. Air traffic supervisors 

are another 10 percent and then we move to our aviation safety responsibilities. Our safety inspectors and supervisors represent 

about 9 percent, and our field support for air traffic is 7 percent. 

What all of this says is the number and percentage of those activities which are headquartered or overhead activities are a very 

small percentage of the total. So to exempt the safety critical operations and employees within the agency—since 84 percent of our 

employees are in the field dealing with safety-critical functions, it 

does not get us there. We really have to focus on the entire workforce.

Would you like me to respond to your second question? 

Ms. LOWEY. Yes. 

Mr. HUERTA. Your second question was on impacts of FY 2014 

and beyond. We really do not have certainty moving forward until 

we have a clear understanding of what our appropriation will look 

like for fiscal year 2014 and what will be the ultimate resolution 

of the sequester. The sequester is a multi-year program, and the 

combination of not knowing what the long-term perspective on 

that, combined with needing to understand what 2014 will look 

like, leads to a great deal of uncertainty. Having certainty on that 

is very important. 

Ms. LOWEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do hope, I would 

say to Chairman Rogers, that we can move forward through regular order, analyze these budgets, and not put in place even greater cuts. And you have explained very elegantly the impact, and it 

is just not a matter of moving around 2 percent of the budget. This 

is serious, and I do hope we can move ahead on a serious budget 

and roll back the sequester, which is causing such damage not only 

in this area but in other areas of the budget. And it is clear that 

it is up to the Congress to do it. We have the authority. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Ms. Lowey. 

The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What a great day to have 

your first day of testimony, huh? 

Just clarify a matter for me if you could, administrator. Did the 

OMB ever direct the FAA at any time to furlough controllers during sequestration or was this your idea from the get-go? 

Mr. HUERTA. We received no direction from the Office of Management and Budget. For us it was a mathematical exercise. We had 

to find $637 million. We focused first on the contract activities and 

whatever savings we could yield there. Whatever increment was 

left we knew that we had to get out of payroll savings. 

Mr. COLE. Let me ask you about the contract. And you have already partially touched on this and I appreciate the explanation. 

Just by way of clarification so you know, we have six contract con-
251

trol towers in the state. I have three in my district so we were hit 

pretty hard by this decision. Three that lost, you know, support, so 

to speak. We have been able through a variety of measures to keep 

a couple of those open locally. 

It is my understanding that we have 251 contract towers. We essentially defunded 149 of them, around 60 percent of the total. 

That seems disproportionate in what is a 5 percent across-theboard cut. Granted, somewhat substantially increased because it 

had not been set at the beginning of the fiscal year. So can you explain to me why so much it and that particular program? 

Mr. HUERTA. The Program Projects and Activities within the 

FAA are defined by the color of money and then within that by our 

lines of business. What that means is that one PPA would be air 

traffic. That is a combination of contract activities and payroll activities. We wanted to focus on first and foremost what could we 

reduce in the contract area that would enable us to minimize the 

impact on employees. As you have heard me say, the contract tower 

program represents a very large expenditure within that account. 

We believe it is manageable because these are relatively low activity facilities, fewer than 150 total operations and 10,000 commercial operations on an annual basis. All of these towers have experience, or all these airports have experience, with the exception of 

one, of operating in a non-towered capacity. There are well-established rules of how a non-towered airport would operate. 

The tradeoff is for every dollar of savings that I am not able to 

achieve in contracts, that hits the payroll account. Now, the payroll 

account is where we fund the employees that operate the large facilities. That is the tension and the tradeoff that we have to look 

at. As I have said, none of these are good choices. These are extremely difficult and disruptive choices, but it is the law as it is 

currently enforced and we have to carry that out. 

Mr. COLE. Have you looked at it airport by airport? I mean, did 

you go down to that level of detail? Did you also take into account 

when you were making these—I would agree with you, very difficult decisions. You know, some of these things are very close to 

military facilities as well and have a military function. 

Mr. HUERTA. We started with just the traffic count that we 

talked about, the 150,000 and 10,000. Then we considered what the 

impacts of certain of these facilities that were adjacent to major 

hub airports. Do they serve some important traffic function that 

enables how those hub airports operate? Then we consulted with 

the Department of Defense and Homeland Security. They provided 

their priority facilities and every priority that they identified we 

elected to exempt from closure under this framework. 

Mr. COLE. Okay. I have got some other questions but I am not 

going to have time to pursue them so I will just yield back my time 

and wait for the next round, Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman. 

Ms. Herrera Beutler. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I know that this line of questioning is going to continue. I am 

going to take a chance and ask something else. 

Mr. HUERTA. Okay. 
252

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. So general aviation user fees or fees, I 

am actually not inclined to call them fees unless there is a nexus 

between the use and what the money collected then goes for. Otherwise, I call it a tax. 

Both administrations have proposed them in general over the 

last several years, but this administration now has multiple times. 

I have seen this movie before. You all propose it and then Congress 

says no. Partially, I would assume because the general aviation 

community or the industry employs 1.3 million people. That is $150 

billion to the U.S. economy, and a lot of those trickle down. It is 

small business. So in my neck of the woods that is what we are. 

We are small business. And so it is very important to me. 

And I guess I would like to ask, it still is very unclear to me— 

I should preface this. The one response I do not think would be appropriate is sequestration because you have asked for this money 

before and have not explained how it is going to be used and we 

have not given it. Why do you think now is a good time to ask for 

it again? And what is the nexus? I mean, what is the use? And can 

you justify this? 

Mr. HUERTA. Sure. 

The FAA’s budget is supported through a combination of aviation 

trust fund and general fund resources. In proposing this, what the 

administration is simply saying is that we would like to place a 

higher reliance on trust fund activities where fees are paid by the 

users of the aviation system. We have had this whole discussion 

about the need to reduce federal spending, and we believe that to 

the extent that we could raise significant resources from the users 

of the system, that that would be of significant benefit in dealing 

with our larger fiscal challenges that we as a country need to deal 

with.

Now, in terms of what the fee would cover, it would reflect the 

fact that the government provides significant air traffic control 

services, aviation services for the benefit of the aviation community, and the fee would, for us, no matter what kind of flight it is, 

it costs us the same to operate it within the air traffic control system. The notion is that there are services that are provided to the 

aviation community, and what we are really looking to do is to see 

if we can recover that through the use of fees. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. In terms of what is paid in general 

through licensure and ability to use certain airport hangars, purchases of planes, all the taxes that go into all that, so you are saying that does not come close to playing a role in maybe, hey, I am 

using this facility. I am also paying taxes and fees and licensure 

fees and so on and so forth associated with it. You do not think 

that comes? 

Mr. HUERTA. It does not completely cover the cost of operating 

the aviation system. 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER. No? Okay. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentlewoman. 

Mr. Joyce. 

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I have a few questions regarding NextGen. 

Mr. HUERTA. Sure. 
253

Mr. JOYCE. I was wondering if the FAA is spending a billion dollars per year on NextGen, which we would agree is needed to address future air traffic demand, given that domestic and international operations are down 12 percent since 2007, do you think 

we should consider deferring long-term NextGen programs before 

implementing furlough of air traffic controllers? 

Mr. HUERTA. There are two dimensions to the response to your 

question, sir. The first is the NextGen program primarily is funded 

from our Facilities and Equipment account and our Research, Engineering and Development account. We do not have flexibility to 

transfer between those accounts and the operating account, which 

is the account where we are seeing the significant impacts associated with the furlough. 

The second point that I would like to make is that these are investments that have significant long-term benefits in making the 

system operate much more efficiently and able to handle the expected growth of traffic that we expect without a commensurate increase in cost. I think it is pennywise and pound foolish to delay 

and defer the investments that we need to make in this long-term 

infrastructure that are actually going to make the system operate 

much more efficiently down the road. 

Given where NextGen is funded from, the Facilities and Equipment and the Research, Engineering, and Development account, we 

do not have the flexibility to move those funds to our Operations 

account absent some change in the sequester law. 

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you. And I understand then from what you 

are saying is that you intend on going through with the implementation of NextGen on a timely manner. 

Mr. HUERTA. That is correct. We will see some delays that will 

result from the effects this year. For example, we have collaborative work groups that involve aviation stakeholders, air traffic 

controllers, facility managers, and airports that have been planning 

for the deployment of much more optimized and efficient routes for 

transit in and out of airports. This program, which we call 

Metroplex, allows for airlines to use more direct routing, to use 

things called optimized profile descents, but they all have the same 

benefit—reduced fuel burn, reduced emissions, and for some communities, significant reduced noise. 

As we are furloughing employees we do not have the luxury of 

assigning air traffic controllers to be working in these collaborative 

workgroups. We have instead recalled them to their home facilities 

so that they can actually work on moving air traffic as we deal 

with the impacts of the sequester. 

Mr. JOYCE. Well, the GAO has indicated that lack of controller 

training in the new procedures has prevented them from being 

used. You are not doing anything to correct that? 

Mr. HUERTA. We have been doing a lot to correct that. We have 

had to put it on hold to deal with the immediate impacts with the 

sequester. We had actually, in response to GAO, invested a significant amount in ensuring that we have appropriate controller involvement and training. It has resulted in great benefit in these 

procedures and these NextGen investments being used by the aviation industry. We have had to pause that while we deal with the 
254

immediate operational challenges to mitigate the impacts associated with furloughing our employees. 

Mr. JOYCE. I see that sequestration seems to be the answer of 

the day, but what barriers do you foresee other than sequestration 

and implementation of NextGen? 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, as we look to implement NextGen down the 

road, this represents a significant technological transformation. It 

moves us from a system of air traffic control to a system of air traffic management. Those are all good things. That is something that 

needs to be done collaboratively with the aviation industry and 

with all of our stakeholders and with our workforce. Some have likened it to buying the latest technology and turning it on, I think 

of it as a significant transformation in how we operate. That means 

that we have to work as a shared responsibility to maintain safety 

and operational efficiency with the users of the aviation system, 

and we are committed to doing that. It also means that we have 

to invest in the things that you have talked about—training and 

operationalizing all these investments that we are making. 

I think of it this way—we are not investing in technology for 

technology’s sake. We are investing in technology to yield benefits. 

If we cannot measure and achieve the benefits for the aviation 

community then we are not doing our job. 

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I see I am out of time. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Price. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning. I appreciate you being here, and I appreciate the 

earlier answers you have given which I will not ask you to go over 

again regarding the impact of sequestration and the kind of flexibility your agency does or does not have in dealing with these personnel reductions or furloughs and the reduced service at major 

airports—things that all of us know to be highly undesirable. And 

yet we have to say they are very much in line with the intent of 

sequestration, which was to be unacceptable. The intent of sequestration was to make deep and indiscriminate cuts and to be unacceptable and to force everybody to the table to conclude a broader, 

longer term budget agreement. 

Sequestration does not touch the main drivers of the deficit; we 

all know that. It barely touches entitlements. It does not touch tax 

expenditures. Those are the main drivers. It goes back yet again 

to discretionary spending, and cuts it in ways that, as I say, were 

designed to be unacceptable. And so to pretend that it does not 

really need to hurt very much, and that the president or the FAA 

with a flick of the wrist could make this different, is disingenuous. 

We need to fix the problem, which is to get a long-term budget 

agreement as opposed to pretending that damage control, putting 

out this fire and then that, is a budget policy. It simply is not a 

budget policy and it is not going to work. And the sooner we can 

get to a long range budget agreement the better off we are going 

to be. 

Let me turn to aircraft certification, which has not been raised 

this morning and I do want to raise it. You are well aware that 

aviation manufactured products can only go to market once they 

are certified. You also know that the FAA has been unable to sup-
255

port the current level of industry activity within the current average certification wait time of six to nine months, which puts American aviation manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage when 

compared to foreign companies. Furthermore, the number of new 

technologies requiring certification is expected to increase as we 

implement NextGen. 

So in recognition of this under the last FAA reauthorization, 

Congress included language to identify some needed reforms in the 

certification process and to focus FAA resources more effectively on 

critical activities, involving safety, for example, while beginning to 

address the backlog of certification requests. I wonder if you can 

give us an update on the implementation of these reforms. What 

are some of the specifics for increasing the timeliness and effectiveness of the certification program? What kind of challenges are you 

encountering?

Mr. HUERTA. Well, thank you, sir. 

The certification process is something that is extremely important for the reason that you have talked about. New products cannot come into the market without having FAA certification. Aviation represents the technological frontier; it is our largest export industry. It is a very significant creator of jobs in the country. With 

direction from Congress we have focused very much on how can we 

take better advantage of our certification resources. 

We have recognized that fundamentally preserving safety is 

about managing risk, and managing risk involves developing data. 

Where are we likely to have problems and how do we focus our inspection and oversight responsibilities on the areas that might 

have the greatest potential for problems? We have been tasked by 

Congress, and we have aggressively moved on relying on designations of trusted agents in organizations throughout the aviation industry so that we can share the responsibility for bringing new 

products to market. They could do a lot of the legwork but we 

never give up our responsibly ultimately to certify and ensure that 

new products are safe before they come to market. 

Nonetheless, it is an evolution that needs to take place over time. 

And what we have seen is a real pickup in the pace of requests for 

new certification, and I think that reflects positive economic trends 

within the industry. But the flipside of it is that the aviation certification workforce is hit by the same impacts as everybody else 

right now. That causes us to focus on aircraft and parts in service 

at the expense of certification activities for the immediate term as 

we are dealing with the impacts of this year. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, the fiscal 2014 request for aircraft certification 

service is about level I note—213 million. It does seem to underscore your commitment to providing the funding and staffing necessary to ensure more timely certification. What about the funding 

and staffing levels? How is that related to the situation you just 

described?

Mr. HUERTA. Well, the staffing for us is something—we have 

staffing models that look at the full scope of our need for resources 

in aviation safety. That has proven to be a complex process and we 

continue to work to refine it. What we are trying to do is strike the 

appropriate balance between having a responsible budget request, 

recognizing the tight fiscal conditions that we are in, but at the 
256

same time providing resources that will support our continued 

growth and evolution in our certification activities. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Price. 

Mr. Dent. 

Mr. DENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Huerta, just a few things, particularly with respect to the notifications about the furloughs and what is happening with air traffic control. I know a lot of those notifications occurred this week. 

I think a lot of the American public felt frankly blindsided—the 

airlines, the unions, airports, and most importantly of all, the flying public. You know, compared to the way the contract tower issue 

was handled, I got the sense that the FAA had, in fact, consulted 

with other interested partners and stakeholders, like the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense. You 

know, why were DHS and DoD given that courtesy, as they should 

have been, with respect to the contract towers, but it seems that 

all the other folks that I just mentioned—the airlines, the unions, 

the airports, and the flying public—just feel completely blindsided 

by this decision? 

Mr. HUERTA. Sir, when we talked about the contract tower decision back in February, we, at the same time, did say that we expected impacts on major hub facilities and that it would be as a 

result of furloughs of FAA employees. I think it is fair to say that 

the thing that captured the media attention and that was something that became, I think, a matter of intense public focus was the 

contract towers. These longer term impacts, which at the time we 

said would not emerge until later, despite our efforts to talk about 

them, they were things that really did not sink in with people; that 

we were expecting to see this. 

Last week, nonetheless, when we began that process, what we 

did was we asked each of our air traffic facilities to build schedules 

based on 10 percent fewer available hours per each pay period per 

employee, and those form the basis for us to use the tools that we 

use every day to model our ability to handle aircraft within the air 

traffic system. Those operational details were what we provided 

last week to the users of the system. We are continuing to monitor 

it and have been monitoring it since Sunday as we have worked 

through to do everything that we can to mitigate the impacts of 

these. But we have been talking about this since February. 

Mr. DENT. One other thing, too, there was an editorial today in 

the Wall Street Journal entitled ‘‘Flying the Government Skies,’’ 

and I realize it is an editorial and it is an opinion and you may 

or may not agree with what they said, but there is just one paragraph I thought that was interesting and I would like you to respond to it. They said, ‘‘Ponder this logic, if that is the right word. 

The sequester cuts about $637 million from the FAA, which is less 

than 4 percent of the $15.9 billion 2012 budget, and it limits the 

agency to what it spent in 2010. The White House decided to translate this 4 percent cut and it has the legal discretion to avoid and 

do a 10 percent cut for air traffic controllers. Though controllers 

will be furloughed for one of every 10 working days, four of every 

flights will not arrive on time, so basically a 4 percent FAA spending cut that is translated into delays of 40 percent of flights.’’ 
257

I would like you to respond to that. 

Mr. HUERTA. What we are responding to is the need to find the 

savings in half of the year. That one furlough day per pay period 

gets us about $220 million of the total savings I need to achieve 

of $637 million between now and the end of the year. These are not 

great choices. These are all difficult impacts. We have focused first 

on achieving savings in contracts, achieving savings in nonpay expenses with the idea of minimizing the impact on FAA employees. 

But we had a gap that we needed to close and we had no choice. 

Mr. DENT. And one other thing, too. With respect to contract 

tower program, the administration’s decision to close the contract 

towers has garnered a lot of attention here in Congress as you 

know. The Capital City airport in my district is going to be impacted by the contract tower closures. I have heard from Cap City, 

as well as the Airport Council. They cite that DOT’s inspector general is saying that the contract tower program is a cost-effective 

method of providing air traffic control. My assumption is that the 

closure decisions were based on flight volume and revenues generated at these tower airports. What, if any, analysis was conducted in parallel to analyze the impacts these closures will have 

on operations and safety of neighboring airports? 

Mr. HUERTA. When we looked at this we focused first on the activity level of each of these facilities, and these represent the lower 

activity facilities throughout the system. We did consider effects on 

adjacent hub airports and consultations, as you noted, with the Department of Defense and Homeland Security on whether they 

wanted us to exempt particular facilities. We did exempt every one 

that showed up on their priority list. 

In terms of the operations of these airports, we are not doing 

anything that is not safe, but an airport that is non-towered operates differently. Generally, the difference is it operates less efficiently in order to maintain the highest levels of safety. We did 

analyze each of these airports, and in looking at each of these airports, one thing that was apparent was that all but one of them 

operate for some portion of the day non-towered already. They have 

well-established procedures of how to operate in this capacity. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank the gentleman. 

You had mentioned earlier on the contract towers apparently you 

contacted or got guidance or direction from Homeland Security and 

DoD. Who else did you talk to on these decisions? 

Mr. HUERTA. Within the federal government it was those two 

agencies. We consulted with airports to determine if these serve an 

important function and if it is related to a hub airport. Then sent 

our operations teams out in the region. 

Mr. LATHAM. Did you get any direction either from the Department or from the White House as to how to inflict sequesters? 

Mr. HUERTA. We shared what our analysis showed with respect 

to the operations of the facility with our colleagues at the Department but we did not receive any specific direction from them. 

Mr. LATHAM. From the White House? 

Mr. HUERTA. No. 
258

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Dent was asking about engaging of the stakeholders, and again, do you want to tell how and when you engaged 

the airlines as to what your plans were? 

Mr. HUERTA. We talked generally starting in February that we 

expected the sequester would result in the closure of contract towers, and we identified a level at that point, and we talked about 

the process. We also said that we would be furloughing our employees and that that would have significant impacts at major hub facilities. Then we went through the process in two parallel tracts: 

On the contract tower side, the consultations that I referenced in 

my response to Mr. Dent; on the air traffic side with FAA employees we went through the scheduling process that I had—— 

Mr. LATHAM. When did you do that? 

Mr. HUERTA. When did we do that? 

Mr. LATHAM. Yeah. 

Mr. HUERTA. Starting—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Last week? 

Mr. HUERTA. Starting in February and then into March. Where 

we first had to make a determination of what were the minimum 

number of furlough days and that is where we made the decision 

to plan for one per pay period. That was handed out to all of our 

facilities and they did their analysis in the course of the month of 

March. They needed to build schedules that would reflect this reduction in hours. That was shared in granular detail with the airline industry last week. 

Mr. LATHAM. Why did it take till last week? If you wanted them 

to adjust their schedules, to me—and you keep talking about February 11th that you had all the planning in place—why could you 

not share that earlier rather than just wait? And there was no detail as to what your plans were, and you just said until last week. 

Mr. HUERTA. We did share with them what we expected broad 

systemic impacts to be. We did not have the information until it 

had actually been built by the facilities and we understood how it 

would affect particular rates at each air traffic facility. We shared 

that after we had done the appropriate work on it to make sure 

that we were confident that this represented an expected outcome 

as a result of these activities. 

Mr. LATHAM. So even though you are telling us that we all knew 

about everything February 11th, you did not tell anybody at the 

airlines to change their schedules or to adjust to it until last week? 

They got no detail until last week; is that correct? 

Mr. HUERTA. We told the airlines that they should expect impacts as a result of a reduction in available hours for air traffic facilities starting in February, and we continued to make that case. 

What we shared last week were specific operational details. 

Mr. LATHAM. So they could not do anything until last week? 

Mr. HUERTA. I would not agree with that. They could certainly 

plan for a general reduction in capacity. 

Mr. LATHAM. But if they do not know what that means, how can 

they plan? 

Mr. HUERTA. The same way that we do; to plan for various scenarios.

Mr. LATHAM. Without any specifics as to what you are going to 

do?
259

Mr. HUERTA. We have been saying that we were going to furlough employees one day per pay period for a long time. That is 

a 10 percent reduction in available controller hours. 

Mr. LATHAM. Moving on, I guess. Last year you spent $149 million in travel. What have you done 

to reduce the steps or what steps have you taken to reduce travel? 

And how much are you going to save this year? 

Mr. HUERTA. Last year we did spend—it was in fiscal 2012— $149 million. That represents 2 percent of the operating budget. 

We have reduced that to $125 million this year. And that is limited 

to operational travel; for example, an aviation safety inspector 

needing to get to a particular facility to conduct an inspection or 

a technician needing to conduct work in repairs of facilities. 

Mr. LATHAM. My time is expired. 

Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. PASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Now that you have made that determination about the furloughing and hours and pay periods, et cetera, what are you doing 

to continually communicate with the airline industry so that they 

can continue to play and avoid the problems that they have had in 

the last few days? 

Mr. HUERTA. We have an every two hour operations call with the 

operations teams at the airlines. That takes place at our command 

center, which is located out in Warrenton, Virginia. What we share 

with them is what we are finding in terms of specific facility impacts as they develop over the course of the day, what airports 

might have introduced such things as ground delay programs, 

where we have to implement activities such as flow control programs so that we can manage it. And then, of course, you have to 

overlay on top of everything the weather. That will also affect how 

a facility is going to operate. 

We want to keep that level of communication because what we 

need to understand is the network impacts of how all of these combinations of impacts at different facilities take place. The command 

center is really where all of that comes together and these conversations take place every other hour within the course of a day. 

Mr. PASTOR. You had to extend the closing of the towers, the contract towers till June; correct? And that was because of a lawsuit. 

As I understand your testimony this morning, basically, that determination was made because of your EPA’s—in order to ensure safety with the air traffic controllers you decided 149 contract towers 

was the number that you had to eliminate. Now, you are in court 

right now and we do not know what the decision is going to be, but 

what if the court says your decision does not merit closure so you 

have to reopen them? 

Mr. HUERTA. I cannot comment on how the litigation will come 

out. I am not a lawyer. 

Mr. PASTOR. Oh, just a for instance. I mean, take that as a hypothetical.

Mr. HUERTA. For instance would be for every dollar that I am 

unable to save through contract tower savings, then I have to find 

savings someplace else—either in other contracts or in payroll expenses. And so that could theoretically increase the number of days 

that I would require for furlough. 
260

Mr. PASTOR. Now, as I understand your testimony, you looked at 

other contracts. 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. 

Mr. PASTOR. And the determination is that you could not do it 

so you went to the furloughing of the air traffic controllers. Is it 

possible to relook at the contracts you have that you decided not 

to deal with in this round and maybe now knowing the problems 

that we are having with the delays, that you might be able to 

relook at that and say, well, I am going to go back to salaries and 

see if I can bring back more air traffic controllers and continue to 

avoid not the contract towers but the other contract cuts that you 

could make? 

Mr. HUERTA. This is something that we are evaluating on a regular basis. 

First the contracts; Yes, we have established targets for savings 

for particular contracts, and I have talked about some of the areas 

where we focused. Contract towers is one but we have also focused 

on training contracts. We focused on equipment expenditures for 

spare parts, as well as maintaining inventory so that we could respond quickly to things like outages and so forth. 

What we do not want to do is cannibalize contracts to the effect 

that while we might be able to preserve employees, they would not 

be able to carry out their jobs because they do not have equipment, 

they do not have the tools they need to actually do their jobs. But 

that is something that we will monitor and we will continue to 

monitor very carefully as we go through these weeks and months 

ahead.

If I am able to achieve higher levels of savings in contracts, yes, 

then we can certainly, as we get later in the year, consider whether 

we have the ability to relax the furlough. That is something we will 

continue to monitor. 

Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I have the yellow light so I will yield 

back.

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. When did the furlough policy go into effect? What 

date?

Mr. HUERTA. The furlough itself went into effect with the pay period that began on Sunday, April 21st. 

Mr. ROGERS. When? 

Mr. HUERTA. Sunday, April 21st. The furlough itself. We had to 

notify employees. There were two notifications starting about five 

weeks ahead of that where we notified them of the possibility of 

furlough and then the intent that we were actually going to carry 

it out. 

Mr. ROGERS. So that was April when they got the word in detail? 

Mr. HUERTA. No, no, no. They got the detailed word—I will get 

back to you with an exact date but we did provide them an official 

notification that it would start, and I think it was a week or two 

before April 21st. 

[The information follows:] 

The FAA delivered official furlough decision notices to all affected employees on 

April 10, 2013. These notifications were mailed via certified mail to all employees 

in bargaining units that requested such delivery. Other employees received their no-
261

tices electronically through their FAA email accounts. The notice informed affected 

employees that they would be subject to furlough beginning April 21 through September 30, 2013 and that furlough times would be no more than 11 workdays or 

88 hours. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, nevertheless, it was, what, a week ago? Ten 

days ago? 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Did I hear you correctly say that you first gave the 

airlines and airports and the infrastructure notice of how this thing 

was going to be applied last Wednesday? 

Mr. HUERTA. No. What I said was that we provided notification 

to them of the general impact. We provided operational details on 

Tuesday.

Mr. ROGERS. I am not worried about general impacts. I want you 

to tell us when you told them the details of which airports, at what 

times they would have trouble. Now, that was last Wednesday as 

I understand it. 

Mr. HUERTA. Tuesday. 

Mr. ROGERS. Last Tuesday. Pardon me. 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Which was a few days before it went into effect. 

Mr. HUERTA. That is correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. And we have got hundreds of airports. We have got 

dozens of airlines. We have got millions of Americans wanting to 

make their plans for travel. Why did you wait until that long to 

tell these functionaries—the airlines, the airports, and the personnel—the detailed impact of sequester? Why wait that long? You 

have had this under consideration as you have said for several 

months, but you waited until hours before it was to be placed into 

effect to tell the relevant stakeholders. I find that shocking. A 

shocking lapse of management. Would you comment on that? 

Mr. HUERTA. We built detailed schedules within each of these facilities, and we shared this information with the airlines as we had 

it.

Mr. ROGERS. And that was a few hours before it went into effect? 

But you have been doing this for months. Why could you not have 

brought them in earlier so that they could make their plans? 

Mr. HUERTA. We have been talking about general impacts. 

Mr. ROGERS. General impacts again. I am not worried about— 

they knew the general impacts. 

Mr. HUERTA. But we have been talking about reduction in available controller hours of 10 percent for months. 

Mr. ROGERS. But you did not tell them which airports, which airlines, which times. 

Mr. HUERTA. We told them that they should expect significant 

impacts at major hub facilities. 

Mr. ROGERS. Well, la-de-dah. Everyone knew that. That is what 

sequester is all about. 

But it is important for them to plan their schedules and their 

hours and their planes and the airports, their management personnel. They needed to know detailed impact on them as early as 

could be had. And you had months to do that and yet you refused. 

I find that shocking. 
262

Mr. HUERTA. I do not think we refused. I would say that what 

we wanted to do was conduct a proper schedule and analysis of it 

and then provide them the best information we could. 

Mr. ROGERS. How did you inform them? 

Mr. HUERTA. We informed them in a meeting that we had at the 

command center. 

Mr. ROGERS. A meeting? 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Between whom? 

Mr. HUERTA. Our operations team led by our air traffic organization.

Mr. ROGERS. Now, when did you inform the airlines, the airports?

Mr. HUERTA. We talked—— 

Mr. ROGERS. How did you inform them? 

Mr. HUERTA. We talked in a meeting. We have had a number of 

meetings with the aviation industry, first about contract towers 

and then talking about the impacts associated from the furlough. 

Mr. ROGERS. So you mean you got all the airlines in the room? 

Mr. HUERTA. We get together with them every day in an operational capacity. 

Mr. ROGERS. And there are hundreds of airports. Did you have 

them in the meeting? 

Mr. HUERTA. The airports, not every airport is affected by the 

impacts of the furloughs, but we certainly identified through their 

associations the major impacted airports. 

Mr. ROGERS. So you did this with a conference call? 

Mr. HUERTA. No, with a meeting. 

Mr. ROGERS. Did you ask them for their input, their suggestions, 

their ideas? 

Mr. HUERTA. We are continuing to have that conversation. We 

shared with them this is what our analysis showed and we will 

continue that discussion every day going forward. 

Mr. ROGERS. Did you take into account the complaints, the information that they gave to you? 

Mr. HUERTA. Absolutely. 

Mr. ROGERS. Were they shocked when you told them at the last 

minute of the impact on their airport, airline? 

Mr. HUERTA. You would need to talk to them about what their 

reaction was but they expressed great concern. 

Mr. ROGERS. Now, you mentioned I think that there were some 

long-term projects that FAA has invested in and that you do not 

really want to take much from those projects for fear of derailing 

the progress. Can you tell us what those projects are? 

Mr. HUERTA. That is the investment in our Next Generation Air 

Transportation System. 

Mr. ROGERS. In light of the current situation, do those projects 

really have priority over the operation of commercial air space? 

Mr. HUERTA. There are two pieces to that answer. The first is I 

do not have the flexibility to transfer from my Facilities and Equipment account which funds those projects to the Operations account. 

But the second point is these projects will have important benefits 

for efficiency long term. And I think that we need to get on with 

making those investments to ensure efficiency. 
263

Mr. ROGERS. Have you asked the Congress for those changes to 

allow you to do that? 

Mr. HUERTA. No. 

Mr. ROGERS. That is what I thought. 

I yield. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Price. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me briefly revisit this matter of the contract tower closures. 

In February, you anticipated the closures at 149 contract towers. 

In March, you announced that you would delay the closure of those 

towers until June. So you have stretched out that timetable. And 

you have already talked some about the kind of consultation that 

took place at various levels and has continued to take place about 

this. Let me ask you about the consultation that takes place with 

the local communities, the airports, airport authorities. I understand that some communities, maybe 50 or so, are trying to come 

up with their own resources to keep towers open as part of the 

FAA’s nonfederal contract tower program. What steps would need 

to happen to make that a reality? How can you facilitate that transition? And let us say that transition does occur. There are various 

questions one might have about what happens to the FAA’s equipment in the towers and so forth. Can you shed some light on that? 

Mr. HUERTA. Sure. 

About 50 have requested the ability to locally fund the federal 

contract tower that is currently existing within their particular 

community, and it is relatively straightforward to effect. It is simply a change in who is paying for the cost. We have offered that 

they could simply cover the cost of the FAA’s contract or we have 

put them in contact with the contractor directly in order to negotiate their own agreement and their own contract to carry out the 

contract tower services. 

Getting to June 15th does enable more time for those arrangements to be worked out. As it relates to the equipment in the facility, we have adopted a very liberal approach. If a community wants 

to take over the use of the equipment, we will continue to make 

it available and maintain it for that purpose to manage through 

this transition. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. So you can make good use of this time 

you think in these cases? 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. Let me return to another item raised earlier, the NextGen performance-based navigation procedures. 

You spent a lot of resources to develop this, to develop these new 

procedures to streamline the arrivals and departures in the airports. Of course, the industry supports the implementation of performance-based navigation procedures. It will reduce the number of 

miles, the amount of fuel consumed. 

Just a couple of questions about this. There have been some GAO 

studies that have indicated that one gap in this program may be 

a lack of controller training in the new procedures that has prevented them from being used fully. I wonder what you are doing 

to correct this, how you assess this, and what kind of corrective 

measures you have underway. And then here, too, what impact has 
264

and will sequestration have on the development of these performance-based procedures, especially in the Metroplex environment? 

You talk about the desire to protect this program. You talk about 

the fact that you do not have unlimited flexibility to transfer funds 

back and forth. What I am asking is what you anticipate the practical effect of sequestration is likely to be near term, middle term. 

Mr. HUERTA. Sure. 

When the IG identified for us the matter of controller training, 

that is something that we concurred with. We have actually made 

it a significant area of focus. Controller training is essential. Not 

just training but also consultation with controllers in a collaborative fashion to actually understand how a new piece of technology or a new procedure is actually going to work, and what are 

the benefits that we are trying to get out of it? All of that is extremely important to being able to yield benefit and ensure that 

the thing actually gets used. That has been an extremely high priority for us. 

We have focused on the deployment of technology systems such 

as ERAM and TAMR, but also on procedures—the performancebased navigation procedures that you talked about. 

There is a near-term impact of our scheduling problem this year 

because in order to focus on preserving the activities of the operation we have called back controllers to their home facilities, and 

that is affecting their ability to work in the collaborative work 

groups as we work through sequester. The President’s Budget for 

2014 assumes that the sequester has been resolved, and it does 

provide resources to enable us to restart those collaborative activities and to ensure that we have the appropriate levels of involvement and training. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Price. 

Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Administrator, I want to pick up where you left off because 

that was actually the line of questioning I was interested in pursuing earlier. You assume or the budget assumes for fiscal year 

2015 sequester will end. What do you base that on? Are there in 

the budget alternative revenues or cuts that would, you know, justify that assumption? 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, the entire president’s budget is based on a 

premise that the sequester is resolved and we simply conform to 

that.

Mr. COLE. Has the president put forward a plan as to how it 

would be resolved? 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, I think the president has put forward a plan 

that represents an appropriate balance between needs to make investments but at the same time—— 

Mr. COLE. Not exactly my question. I mean, does he tell us how 

he would replace the cuts? 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, I think what the president is suggesting is 

that there needs to be an appropriate balance of expenditures and 

revenues.

Mr. COLE. Are you making alternative plans that if this assumption—I mean, it seems to me that is what got us into this problem. 
265

I think everybody assumed the sequester would not occur. The 

president made that commitment in the campaigns, his regional 

idea. Honestly, I think that was probably the consensus in Congress as well. So I am not beating up on the president, but everybody assumed it would not happen. It seems to me a pretty dangerous thing to assume this is going to all go away. 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, as I said, until we have the 2014 budget resolved and the issue of the sequester resolved, that does create for 

us a great deal of uncertainty in our ability to plan going forward. 

Mr. COLE. Are you thinking about possible scenarios internally 

if you have to live with the sequester? 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. 

Mr. COLE. Could you tell us what some of those things would be? 

And as you do that, just, again, you have operated within the limits of the law now, obviously. If you could change—what ways 

would you change the law today if you knew you had to operate 

this way? What additional flexibilities might you like that under 

current law you do not have? 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, I think the policy question that this tees up 

is what does this mean for the National Airspace System and the 

operation of the aviation system in its totality? We have put forward a plan that would suggest that lower activity facilities are an 

area where we would want to perhaps focus on withdrawing federal 

resources. The rationale behind that is that these facilities can continue to operate safely and that they have less of an impact on the 

total operation of the National Airspace System. Now, as we know, 

that is not something that everyone agrees with but that represents certainly what a path forward could be. 

Mr. COLE. What about the grants program? That has been one 

of the sheltered areas under current law. Would that be something 

you would recommend changing as well? 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, we have put forward a proposal to change the 

structure of the grant program, and for large airports to enable an 

increase in the passenger facility charge from $4.50 to $8.00. This 

is, I think, widely supported by the large hub airports. What that 

would free up is it would enable us to have a smaller AIP program, 

and that program could then be focused on the smaller airports. 

Mr. COLE. You do that assuming that sequester would go away. 

I am suggesting it may not go away. And so given that, would 

there be additional—it might be more money. Particularly, I do not 

know what it would be but do you have other ideas? Because I do 

think it is a long way from certain that the sequester will disappear.

Mr. HUERTA. Well, I think there are two dimensions to that. One 

is the nature of what is the will that we all have for where the federal interest is in aviation. Is it in all facilities providing the basic 

level of services? Or should we focus on the larger facilities? 

Related to that is the appropriate balance between short-term 

and near-term investments. You have heard me express the view 

that we should not sacrifice the long term because that is how we 

get maximum efficiencies and savings in the future. Then there is 

the balance between operations and infrastructure. The question 

that you are asking is perhaps we need to relook at that balance. 

And I think that is certainly an appropriate area of consideration 
266

for the appropriators for Congress generally, and that is something 

that we need to as a country figure out going forward if we are 

going to live with these constrained budgets in the future. 

Mr. COLE. Well, as a word to the wise, and again, I am not singling you out. I think this is a problem we face in very single budgetary department that I deal with, but we assumed this thing was 

not going to happen and it did. I would be very careful about assuming that it would all go away because I am not at all convinced 

that it will. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Cole. 

Mr. Quigley is recognized. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, sir. 

Mr. HUERTA. Good morning. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. The president’s budget allows airports like O’Hare to raise their passenger facility charges up to $8.00 in exchange for 

their willingness to spread some of those dollars to smaller airports 

as well to improve facilities. Given everything we understand with 

tight money and the sequestration, is this not the only way a lot 

of these improvements are going to take place? 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, the president’s proposal would reduce the base AIP program. If everyone that has a PFC, raises it to $8.00, 

it does provide them with significant offsetting benefits and they 

are able to raise local resources to fund very significant improvements. That is something that is supported for the most part by 

the large airports. That enables us to focus the AIP program on 

those areas where they do not have the base of traffic that they 

would be able to generate sufficient revenues through a PFC. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. So not just the large hubs but all the airports 

should, you would think, support allowing these airports to raise 

their fees? 

Mr. HUERTA. I cannot speak for all of the airports, but in general, airports that have a passenger facility charge like having a 

passenger facility charge. They like the ability to generate local 

revenues, because for them that gives them a greater degree of certainty and ability to plan for long-term infrastructure programs. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Let me talk—because the horse is not quite deceased—on sequestration here and what you are doing. Can you 

talk a little bit about the policy decision? I believe the expression 

was it was going to be like a spread so that everyone feels the pain 

when you had these furloughs. The policy decision to do this across 

the board versus perhaps taking less strain off the large hubs, I 

guess the rationale on the one hand would be the volume, the sheer 

volume and how many people are connecting through these large 

hubs. Perhaps if we wanted to minimize the impact we would reduce the furloughs in those locations. 

Mr. HUERTA. We did look at that option and the conclusion that 

we reached is that the National Airspace System is very much a 

interconnected network; that aircraft, crews, and passengers move 

through the entire system, and the way that aircraft get moved 

through the system is a combination of both large hubs and smaller 

facilities. Weather and other phenomena also factor in and what 

we concluded was that conducting the furloughs in an unequal 
267

fashion would actually still produce significant disruptions and 

delays throughout the system and things that we could not possibly 

completely understand or mitigate. 

The other thing is that what happens in a particular facility is 

affected by a number of factors. Clearly, our availability to accept 

aircraft at that facility is one factor, but other factors relate to how 

an airline chooses to build its schedule and how it chooses to manage its traffic as it goes through there. We concluded that we could 

not be in the business of picking winners and lowers between particular hubs, particular geographic locations, or one facility versus 

another; that the most equitable way to deal with these network 

impacts was through a universal application of the furlough equally across the system. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. Let me suggest that there is a calculus here that 

you describe that is beyond my pay grade, and I respect that. But 

with all due respect, I have a hard time believing that Atlanta, 

Chicago, and several other hubs impact on the entire system is, 

even with connectivity, is a lot bigger, no matter how you slice this, 

than several of these very small regional airports. 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, let me just cite the examples over the last 

couple of days. One of the things—where we have an application 

of the furlough; what we have seen is there are differential impacts 

on different days based on what we are seeing in terms of actual 

traffic and weather situations. For example, over the last two days 

there have not been significant impacts in Chicago. Now, we are 

seeing that today. What we have seen in terms of impacts in Atlanta have, for the most part, not been as bad as what we would 

have modeled—— 

Mr. QUIGLEY. We are not in the busy summer travel season yet 

either.

Mr. HUERTA. Fair enough. What we are trying to anticipate as 

we work through this is what are things going to look like as we 

get into the busy summer travel season, and that is part of the discussion that we need to keep going. 

Mr. QUIGLEY. All right. And I understand you do not want to 

pick winners and losers. I think you might want to pick volume 

versus smaller volume. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Quigley. 

Mr. Joyce. 

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Following up on my colleague’s question, you had mentioned before in your testimony that there were some airports that were not 

impacted by this? 

Could you tell me which ones those were? 

Mr. HUERTA. It is a number of airports. For example, the Washington airports, they have a lot of available capacity that they are 

able to manage, and so the impacts, we would project, would be 

less than we would see in some other areas of the country. The 

major impacts that we see are in places like all three New York 

airports. It is a complex air space to operate within. These are very 

large facilities and are complicated to manage the air space and 

complicated to staff. And so that is one example of where we would 

see that. 
268

I mentioned Atlanta. Atlanta is one where the impacts could be 

significant or they could be manageable, that is largely a function 

of the design of the airport. They have five parallel runways, so 

they have a lot of available capacity to operate within at that airport. It is the relationship between the facilities but also the design 

of the airfield and the schedules that airlines have. 

Mr. JOYCE. But the cuts you decided to make were uniform 

across the board. 

Mr. HUERTA. Because we determined that the network impacts 

on the entire system were such that if we were to do anything different, that there would still be significant disruptions and it would 

put us in the position of picking winners and losers. 

Mr. JOYCE. Because I am somewhat new with this bear with me 

for a moment. When was the first time you heard the term ‘‘sequestration’’ and that it may apply to your budget going forward? 

Mr. HUERTA. It was in the whole discussion that took place with 

the original passage of the Budget Control Act. 

Mr. JOYCE. Did you prepare alternative budgets? 

Mr. HUERTA. Alternative? 

Mr. JOYCE. Budgets. One with the money that you thought you 

were going to get and another one with sequestration. 

Mr. HUERTA. What we started focusing on at the beginning of the 

fiscal year was to plan for what would a cut look like against our 

budget; yes. 

Mr. JOYCE. Okay. In that cut, did you cut any administration? 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. 

Mr. JOYCE. Could you tell us what you cut? 

Mr. HUERTA. We did significant reductions in all of our nonpay 

activities along the lines of what I talked about—training, travel. 

We cut—— 

Mr. JOYCE. You cut from $129 million I heard you say to $125 

million in travel? 

Mr. HUERTA. One forty nine. One forty nine. 

Mr. JOYCE. I am sorry. 

Mr. HUERTA. One forty nine to $125. We also reduced our IT expenditures through a consolidation. The savings this year for that 

are about $36 million. We have put a hiring freeze on. We got rid 

of contracts that were personal services contracts, essentially letting go contract and temporary employees. 

We have greatly reduced our expenditures in spare parts and 

equipment and everything associated with that. And then in terms 

of the overhead functions—things like general counsel, finance, and 

so forth, I think a disproportionate reduction in those areas all 

with the goal of preserving the operating mission of the agency. 

Mr. JOYCE. Okay. And those preparations took place over 

months?

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. 

Mr. JOYCE. Who do you represent do you feel—the American public, the airline industry? Who would you view as being your end client?

Mr. HUERTA. The American public. 

Mr. JOYCE. Okay. And if the aviation industry serves the American public and moves us across the country, why would you think 

that only last week would be a good time to bring them in and act 
269

in concert with them—or as you say you told them what you were 

going to do—why would you not have engaged them earlier on and 

asked them for their input so they could do the proper reductions 

in their schedules so we could act in concert to serve the American 

public?

Mr. HUERTA. We have been working as diligently as we can to 

deal with what is an unmanageable situation. None of these are 

great choices, and what we wanted to do was to identify as precisely as we could impacts and manage them as best that we possibly could. As information became available we did share it with 

them.

Mr. JOYCE. I was not here for it, sir, so I just want to know why 

we are all of a sudden getting to this point and it seems in the last 

week it has all come into play when you have so many big stakeholders here that should have all been at the table from the getgo to make it work. 

Mr. HUERTA. I have been talking about it since the start of the 

year.

Mr. JOYCE. I understand that. You said that a couple of times 

you have been talking about it but you just told the people who 

were servicing the American public on a daily basis about it last 

week. Last Tuesday you indicated. 

Mr. HUERTA. No, we have talked about what they should expect 

in the way of impacts, what the impacts on our budget was. Last 

week what we were talking about was specific operational details. 

Mr. JOYCE. Last week? 

Mr. HUERTA. That is correct. 

Mr. JOYCE. Last Tuesday? 

Mr. HUERTA. That is correct. 

Mr. JOYCE. And you never felt that you should engage them before last Tuesday on what the schedules could do? 

Mr. HUERTA. We engage with them on a daily basis in operating 

the National Airspace System. But what we shared with them was 

specific schedules that we had built based on the impact of the furlough.

Mr. LATHAM. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. JOYCE. Sorry, Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman. 

We are going to hopefully have a quick last round here, and I 

know your schedule—I think we are about noon to depart. But a 

couple questions that I have yet. 

There is a lot being made about the fact that domestic flights are 

down 27 percent from 2000 levels, and yet the budget has grown 

109 percent since 1996. Can you explain the math on this and why 

the operation budgets are up that much but operations are down? 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, simply put, the nature of the system has 

changed quite dramatically. The biggest increase has been consistent with the economy as a whole, an increase in payroll. We are 

a people-driven organization. 

Second, we have made significant investments in new technology 

since that time, and that is with the long-term goal of transforming 

from a radar-based system to a satellite-based navigation system 

in the years ahead. We have also introduced significant new procedures that are intended to yield benefit for the traveling public 
270

through reduced fuel burn and greater efficiency in the system. We 

are in a period of time where as we introduce the new technologies 

we need to continue to maintain the old technologies. Long term 

there will be significant savings. 

Mr. LATHAM. You know, when we went through the process of 

doing the continuing resolution, OMB sent up a list of hundreds of 

anomalies to address individual funding problems and mandatory 

that you had to pay raises to some people so we had to fix this or 

we could not continue. Was there an anomaly request to fix the furlough problem? 

Mr. HUERTA. I cannot comment on what OMB might have sent 

up, but we were certainly discussing with the FAA and the Department of Transportation what this impact was going to be. 

Mr. LATHAM. So you never talked to OMB about an anomaly to 

fix the problem? 

Mr. HUERTA. We shared with them what we expected the impacts to be. 

Mr. LATHAM. I thought you said you did not talk to them. 

Mr. HUERTA. No, we had discussions about how we were going 

to manage and what we expected the impact to be. 

Mr. LATHAM. But you did not request that they bring an anomaly 

on their list of hundreds of changes that they needed to do the CR? 

Mr. HUERTA. Well, I am not familiar with a list of 100 changes 

that they may have sent. 

Mr. LATHAM. Well over that. Across the government wide they 

had a list of things that they needed in the CR to address certain 

problems. And apparently, but you did not tell them that you had 

a problem? 

Mr. HUERTA. No, it was well known that we had a problem, sir. 

Mr. LATHAM. So they did not respond to your request? 

Mr. HUERTA. I cannot comment on those discussions that might 

have taken place. 

Mr. LATHAM. You do not know if there was a request? 

Mr. HUERTA. I cannot comment on how priorities were established within the continuing resolution. I really do not know. 

Mr. LATHAM. But you are not aware of their having any request 

to Congress to fix this? 

Mr. HUERTA. I am not aware of that. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. So they insisted on the sequester back with 

the Budget Control Act and then when they have this problem that 

is very disruptive to the American people they made no effort to 

fix it? No request? 

Mr. HUERTA. As I said, I am not familiar with what might have 

been sent up on behalf of the government as a whole. 

Mr. LATHAM. I am going to quit a little bit early here but can 

you again look the American people in the eye and say the sequester will have no effect on safety? 

Mr. HUERTA. Yes. The impact will be on efficiency, but we will 

not do anything to compromise safety. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. PASTOR. I am going to follow my colleague, Congressman 

Cole, in that this budget is based on sequestration being removed 

by 2014 or the 2014 budget. But I have to tell you my expectation 

is that, as I said in my opening statement, that 2013 we had se-
271

questration and there is great likelihood that 2014, I think we are 

going to be at least part of the fiscal year in sequestration. I hope 

that regular order comes about and we have Chairman Rogers here 

and we had Ranking Member Lowey who I think would do it if possible. But I would join Congressman Cole to say that sequestration 

is going to continue into 2014 and we should all be prepared for 

it.

Mr. LATHAM. Thank the gentleman. 

Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. ROGERS. No questions. 

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Cole. 

Mr. COLE. No questions. 

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Joyce. 

Mr. JOYCE. No questions. 

Mr. LATHAM. Wow. Maybe I should run the furlough. 

Obviously, there is a lot of frustration from a lot of folks, and you 

are keenly aware of that. But I would hope that as we go through 

this process for next year that we keep an open communication line 

because we have some real tough decisions to make and there is 

a lot of concerns that we all have about going forward certainly 

with emphasis on safety but let me just say we want to continue 

that relationship. It is a difficult situation, obviously, but I wish 

you had come to us to actually let us know what we could do to 

fix the problem. We have heard nothing before and that is the frustration I think shared by Chairman Rogers and a lot of us here, 

but these are not insurmountable problems if, in fact, we cooperate 

and work together. 

With that, thank you very much for your testimony today. And 

the hearing is adjourned. 
272

Questions for the Record 

House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, 

Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies 

Federal Aviation Administration Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Hearing 

The Subcommittee still awaits several responses from the FAA to their 

Questions for the Record. The Subcommittee appreciates that these questions 

are complex and voluminous, yet as of this date (9/25/13), multiple QFR's 

have not yet been answered or cleared. However, with the majority of the 

responses having been received, the Subcommittee is placing those available 

into the record. We look forward to FAA's cooperation in the future. 
273

FAA NEXTGEN SCHEDULE AND COST 

Latham-Ol 

ANG 

QUESTION: What progress has the FAA made in establishing costs and 

deadlines for NextGen? 

ANSWER: 

The FAA's National Airspace System Enterprise Architecture (NAS EA) is the 

blueprint for transforming the current NAS to the NextGen system. The NAS EA 

supports the annual budget development and is part of the agency's Acquisition 

Management System. It contains the integrated technical decisions, synchronized 

investments and the interdependencies across policies, operations, systems and 

technologies. The NAS EA is available on the FAA's public website: 

https://nasea.faa.gov/ 

Building on the EA, the FAA's National Airspace System (NAS) Segment 

Implementation Plan (NSIP) is the FAA's internal NextGen planning document. 

FAA publicly publishes a subset of the NSIP, known as the NextGen 

Implementation Plan (NGIP), annually. The NGIP lays out the overall timelines 

for deploying NextGen capabilities. Both documents set out targets and cost 

estimates for follow-on acquisitions and deployments, describe how the FAA plans 

to implement NextGen capabilities in the mid-term (present-2020) and is organized 

into portfolios of related operational improvements (01). The FAA is currently 

updating the description of the OIs to provide additional detail on operational 

requirements and impacts. The annual update to the current Version 5.0 (approved 

in 2012) is scheduled to be completed in December 2013. 

By December 2013, we will demonstrate the capability of the Integrated Master 

Schedule (IMS) to show the linkages and dependencies among the NextGen 

programs. 

The IMS is a high priority for the agency and is a tool designed to capture tracks 

execution and progress of funded activities and programs for the NSIP portfolios. 

Additional, the IMS along with NSIP serve as the primary enterprise management 

tools to manage the integration and sequencing of NextGen initiatives. We will 

continue our effort to align the IMS as we update the NextGen Segment 

Implementation Plan (NSIP) to include all implementation activities through 2020. 
274

The FAA continues to work on the IMS to capture the changes in programs' 

schedules as it impact the delivery ofNextGen capabilities and ensure greater level 

of reporting NextGen Implementation timeline. 
275

FAA NEXTGEN SCHEDULE AND COST 

Latham-02 

ANG 

QUESTION: When do you expect the FAA to deliver a comprehensive 

NextGen plan, with milestones and completion dates for each 

NextGen program? 

ANSWER: 

The FAA's NextGen Implementation Plan, which was updated June 2013, 

provides a comprehensive overview of the FAA's plan to implement NextGen. As 

discussed in our response to the previous question, the NextGen Implementation 

Plan is supplemented by several other inter-related planning documents that 

support NextGen development and implementation. 
276

AVIATION USER FEES 

Latham-7 

APLIAPO 

QUESTION: The budget assumes the implementation of a new $100 per flight 

mandatory surcharge. How much revenue is this fee expected to 

generate? Why is this new user fee needed? 

ANSWER: 

The proposed fee would generate an estimated $7.3 billion over the next ten years 

that would directly support all FAA programs, including the NextGen 

modernization effort. The Administration's purpose for the proposed air traffic 

service fees is to reduce the federal deficit and more equitably share the cost of air 

traffic services across the aviation user community. 
277

A VIA TlON USER FEES 

Latham-8 

APL/APO 

QUESTION: The budget assumes the implementation ofa new $100 per flight 

mandatory surcharge. In developing this fee proposal, did the 

Department reach out to affected stakeholders for their input? 

ANSWER: 

To ensure appropriate input from stakeholders on the design of the fee, the 

proposal would establish an expert Commission that could recommend to the 

President a replacement charge, or charges, that would raise no less in revenue than 

the proposed fee. 
278

AVIATION USER FEES 

Latham-9 

APL/APO 

QUESTION: The budget assumes the implementation of a new $100 per flight 

mandatory surcharge. Did the Department do an economic 

analysis of how this fee would affect the economy and jobs? If 

so, what were the administration's findings? 

ANSWER: 

The proposal is a part of a comprehensive plan that reduces the deficit. Putting the 

federal budget on a sustainable fiscal path is a critical step toward ensuring a solid 

foundation on which to build a strong economy. 
279

AVIATION USER FEES 

Latham-tO 

APL/APO 

QUESTION: The budget assumes the implementation ofa new $100 per flight 

mandatory surcharge. How would the administration go about 

collecting this fee? 

ANSWER: 

FAA would use flight plans filed with the FAA to assign flight surcharges to 

aircraft operators who fly in controlled airspace. 

Currently, FAA has a billing and collection system for overflight fees. This system 

relies on flight plan information to charge fees for FAA services for aircraft flights 

that transit United States-controlled airspace, but neither land or depart from the 

United States. 

The FAA expects that the current collection system for overflight fees can be 

modified to incorporate the proposed $100 per flight surcharge. 
280

PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGES (PFC) 

Latham-II 

ARP 

QUESTION: Your budget also includes a proposed increase for the Passenger 

Facilities Charge (PFC) from $4.50 to $8.00 per passenger, per 

flight, to justifY a reduction of grants to large and medium sized 

airports. Did the administration consider the economic impact 

of this fee, which will increase ticket prices? 

ANSWER: 

The Administration considered the economic impacts and benefits of the proposed 

increase in the maximum level for the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC). The FAA 

looked at two important economic considerations. First, the FAA considered that 

the current limit ($4.50) was established in 2001 and would need to be raised to 

account for more than a decade of cost inflation since that time. The FAA utilized 

Department of Labor construction cost indices to determine that the equivalent 

PFC level would now need to be on the order of $8.00. 

The FAA also considered the overall capital funding needs for the nation's airports. 

By law, every two years the FAA prepares an analysis of the capital funding needs 

of the nation's airports. In September 2012, the FAA submitted a Report to 

Congress that showed capital funding needs of $42.5 billion from 2013-2017. PFC 

revenues are a vitally important funding source for many airports. 

The budget focuses on the traditional Federal grants to support medium hub, 

smaller commercial service, and general aviation airports that have more limited 

access to additional revenue or other outside sources of capital. At the same time, 

the budget proposes to increase the Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) limit from 

$4.50 to $8.00 and eliminates passenger and cargo entitlement funding for large 

hub airports, but maintains discretionary eligibility. The Budget proposes allowing 

all commercial service airports to increase the non-Federal Passenger Facility 

Charge, thereby giving airports greater t1exibility to generate their own revenue. 

The grants-in-aid program enables FAA to advance important safety, capacity, 

efficiency and environmental improvements at more than 500 airports supporting 

commercial service airports, and more than 2,800 general aviation airports that 

provide critical functions at the national, regional and local level. 
281

PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGES (PFC) 

Latham-12 

ARP 

QUESTION: Your budget also includes a proposed increase for the Passenger 

Facilities Charge (PFC) from $4.50 to $8.00 per passenger, per 

flight, to justifY a reduction of grants to large and medium sized 

airports. Did you consult with industry stakeholders? 

ANSWER: 

The FAA has repeatedly met with industry stakeholders on the subject of a 

potential PFC increase over many years. Many individual airports and airport 

executives, industry associations and consultants have pointed out that the larger 

airports have capital funding needs that far exceed the capacity of AlP grants, even 

before the Federal budget environment became so constrained. Moreover, PFC 

resources can be leveraged over time (i.e., they can be pledged against future debtservice payments), whereas AlP grants typically cannot. 

The Office of Airports conducted stakeholder outreach workshops with 

representatives of airports, airlines and tlnancial industry representatives during the 

last week of May 2013. This is being done as part ofa periodic review of the PFC 

program to evaluate its efficiency and effectiveness and to identity opportunities 

for streamlining and other improvements. 
282

PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGES (PFC) 

Latham-13 

AGI 

QUESTION: Your budget also includes a proposed increase for the Passenger 

Facilities Charge (PFC) from $4.50 to $8.00 per passenger, per 

flight, to justify a reduction of grants to large and medium sized 

airports. Does the Administration plan to engage with the 

authorizers on these two fee proposals? 

ANSWER: 

The FAA has engaged with authorizing committees on these proposals. On April 

15,2013 FAA held a briefing for the House Transportation and Infrastructure 

Committee staff to discuss this proposal and other aspects of the President's FY 

2014 Budget request. 
283

Latham-16 

AVS 

FAA Integration of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in Commercial 

Airspace 

QUESTION: Could you elaborate on the data challenges faced by the 

FAA, and how you plan to improve access to data needed 

to integrate UAS into commercial aerospace? 

ANSWER: 

As part of the approval process for all Public (government) UAS operators, 

the FAA requires reporting on a comprehensive set of operational data. This 

reporting requirement includes 15 general parameters as well as 17 specific 

parameters associated with equipment malfunctions. Examples of general 

and specific data reporting requirements include but are not limited to: 

aircraft and ground station operational hours, number of flights, equipment 

malfunctions, lost communication with air traffic control, and lost command 

and control link. 

In addition, since the GAO report was published, the FAA and DoD have 

been working to establish new mechanisms for the exchange ofUAS data. 

We are working with DoD to supply the complete maintenance history of a 

MQ-9 Predator UAS. This will allow the FAA to analyze the data for 

unique UAS maintenance and design issues that will help establish civil 

aircraft certification standards and operational requirements (e.g. 

maintenance ). 
284

Latham-17 

AVS 

FAA INTEGRATION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS IN 

COMMERCIAL AIRSPACE 

QUESTION: 

ANSWER: 

UAS integration is a multi-agency effort by the FAA, 

DOD, DHS, and others. Do you believe you have the 

organizational leadership structures in place to 

successfully coordinate among these agencies? 

In 2011, Congress created the UAS Executive Committee (ExCom). This 

high level body is made up of FAA, 000, NASA, and DHS executives. The 

ExCom is coordinating many improvements for the approval of public UAS 

operations. In 2012, the Cabinet-level NextGen Senior Policy Committee 

oversaw the creation of a National Comprehensive Plan for UAS integration 

through the Departments and the inter-agency JPDO. 

FAA's newly-created UAS Integration Office has helped streamline the 

UAS operational approval process for public aircraft. These organizational 

leadership structures have proven to be highly effective in addressing the 

coordination needs of the federal government. 
285

Latham-I8 

AVS 

FAA INTEGRATION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS IN 

COMMERCIAL AIRSPACE 

QUESTION: 

ANSWER: 

Several states have passed or introduced legislation 

restricting UAS operations within their airspace. 

How would a patchwork of state laws affect your 

ability to conduct a national UAS research and 

demonstration program, including operation of the 

six test ranges? 

By law, the FAA is charged with ensuring the safe and efficient use of the 

airspace. This statutory authority preempts any state or local government 

from enacting a statute or regulation concerning the matters that are reserved 

exclusively to the United States Government. For example, a state law or 

regulation would generally be preempted if it: prohibits or limits the 

operation of an aircraft; sets standards for airworthiness; or establishes pilot 

requirements. However, state and local governments retain the authority to 

limit the aeronautical activities oftheir own state and local government 

departments and institutions. For instance, under most circumstances, it 

would be within the power of the state or local government to restrict the use 

of certain aircraft, including a UAS, by the state or local police or by a state 

department or university. Therefore, state laws will not impact a national 

UAS research and demonstration program. 
286

Latham-19 

ANG 

NEXTGEN - PERFORMANCE BASED NAVIGATION PROCEDURES 

QUESTION: Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedures continue to be 

desired by airlines because PBN is able to reduce miles flown, 

saving fuel and time. The Committee has been very supportive of 

PBN, even proposing $5 million above the budget request in the 

House bill last year. The FAA reauthorization bill requires FAA 

to speed up the development and approval of PBN approaches, 

especially at the busiest commercial airports. It also required 

FAA to consider using third parties to develop these approach 

procedures, rather than in-house staff. What is the FAA's plan 

to push for beneficial Required Navigation Performance (RNP) 

procedures? 

ANSWER: 

The FAA will use its five-phase collaborative implementation process to certify, 

publish, and implement the Required Navigation Performance (RNP) procedures. 

This includes: (1) project scoping and preliminary activities, (2) design and 

development, (3) operational readiness, (4) implementation, and (5) postimplementation monitoring. The PBN process involves negotiation and 

collaboration with representatives of the various FAA organizations, airport 

authorities, and aviation industry. In order to maximize benefits to all parties of 

interest, a procedures request evaluation process is being developed. This 

evaluation process will recommend design selection that will result in the best 

overall mix of procedures thus providing the greatest operational benefit at a 

specific airport. 

The FAA has also worked to increase collaboration and transparency through, such 

measures as implementing a metrics utilization tool, called the PBN Dashboard, to 

provide both developers and the public infonnation on the usage levels of these 

cost savings procedures. This information will greatly assist in targeting the 

lessons learned to improve designs going forward. Additionally, the Agency has 

also been closely working with industry partners, such as Airlines for America, to 

develop standardized development strategies to assist in increasing usage. 
287

Meeting the deadlines in Section 213 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act 

of2012 is one of the Agency's highest priorities. When we were required to 

curtail our development efforts earlier this year due to the impacts of Sequestration 

and Furlough, we attempted to minimize the impact of these budgetary setbacks on 

reaching the Section 213 goal. That being said, time lines with regard to some 

metrop1ex projects were delayed and this will impact our ability to complete the 

Core 30 airports within the timeline of Section 213. However, in all other aspects, 

to include the non-OEP 35, we are very close to completing all required 

development work on schedule to meet the required timelines. As a Section 213 

highlight, the first public Third Party procedure was published last month in 

Syracuse and has now begun post-implementation review as the other Third Party 

procedures continue development. FAA is finalizing the report to Congress as 

required in Section 213. 
288

Latham-20 

ANG 

NEXTGEN - PERFORMANCE BASED NAVIGATION PROCEDURES 

QUESTION: Performance Based Navigation (PBN) procedures continue to be 

desired by airlines because PBN is able to reduce miles flown, 

saving fuel and time. The Committee has been very supportive of 

PBN, even proposing $5 million above the budget request in the 

House bill last year. The FAA reauthorization bill requires FAA 

to speed up the development and approval of PBN approaches, 

especially at the busiest commercial airports. It also required 

FAA to consider using third parties to develop these approach 

procedures, rather than in-house staff. GAO studies have 

indicated a lack of controller training in the new procedures 

has prevented them from being granted and used. What is 

being done to correct this? 

ANSWER: 

The FAA has developed an informational package explaining the concepts of new 

Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) procedures. The information was developed 

after months of collaboration with industry, controllers in the field, and other 

internal FAA organizations. We expect to make this information available by 

distributing it to air traffic control facilities throughout the National Airspace 

System in the near future. The long tenn goal is to develop training modules that 

will be available on the FAA's training site. Additionally, an interactive DVD 

explaining the basics ofPBN will also distributed to air traffic control facilities. 

The FAA is also leveraging the experience of controllers with higher degrees of 

PBN experience through peer-to-peer engagements in order to overcome some of 

the cultural obstacles to PBN utilization. 

A focus of the Metroplex project makes training a major part of the 

implementation process. Both an implementation plan and a training plan are 

developed in collaboration with the controller work force, aviation community 

operators, and other pertinent parties. Implementation of the procedures only 

occurs after all planned training is accomplished. 
289

Latham-21 

ANG 

NEXTGEN - PERFORMANCE BASED NA VIGA TION PROCEDURES 

QUESTION: To what extent are you using third parties to speed the delivery 

of Performance Based Navigation benefits? 

ANSWER: 

FAA's use ofthird parties to speed the delivery of Performance Based Navigation 

provides benefits for public use. The FAA is currently using a third party to 

develop PBN procedures only within the context of the FY 2012 Third Party 

Vendor Demonstration Program. In this demonstration project, the Third Party 

Vendor is responsible for all aspects of life-cycle development, design, and 

implementation of the RNP procedures at five selected airports (Syracuse NY, 

Milwaukee WI; Anchorage AK; Dayton OH; and Buffalo NY) for the period of the 

contract. 

The Third Party Vendor is delivering a total often RNP procedures (two for each 

airport) within two years of the contract award (May 11,2012 to May 10,2014). 

The vendor is tasked with conducting feasibility studies, site outreach, and 

environmental assessments; preparing all environmental paperwork; and providing 

pre and post implementation support at each location. The results of this 

demonstration project will be evaluated to determine future Third Party 

involvement in FAA RNP procedural development. 

The vendor is contracted to complete this project by the end of May 2014. To date, 

none of the procedures has been fully implemented. After the procedures are 

developed and implemented at all five sites, the FAA will conduct an assessment 

of the Third Party Vendor Demonstration Program to determine the efficiency and 

benefits of using third parties to expedite the delivery of Performance-Based 

Navigation benefits. 
290

Latham-22 

ANG 

NEXTGEN - PERFORMANCE BASED NAVIGATION PROCEDURES 

QUESTION: What has been your experience so far with the third party 

demonstration program established in fiscal year 2012? Is it 

working? 

ANSWER: 

The FY 2012 appropriation included $3 million dollars for the demonstration of 

third party development and delivery of two public Required Navigation 

Pertormance-Authorization Required (RNP-AR) procedures at five FAA-selected 

mid-sized airport locations. On May 10, 2012 the FAA awarded a two year 

contract to GE-Naverus, and its ITT-Excelis teammate for the design, deployment, 

and maintenance of public use RNP procedures. The selected airports are: 

• SYR - Syracuse Hancock International Airport, Syracuse, NY 

• MKE - General Mitchell International Airport, Milwaukee, WI 

• ANC - Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport, Anchorage, AK 

• DAY - James M. Cox Dayton International Airport, Dayton, OH; and 

• BUF - Buffalo Niagara International Airport, Buffalo NY 

Initial coordination for the first site, Syracuse, began in June 2012, followed by 

Milwaukee in July 2012, Anchorage in October 2012, and Dayton in March 2013. 

Initial coordination for the final site Buffalo, NY is scheduled for July 2013. 

The Third Party program delivered the first set ofRNP design procedures at New 

York's Syracuse International Airport. The publication of the procedures was 

accomplished on June 27, 2013. Publication dates for procedures the remaining 

sites are currently: 

• MKE - December 2013; 

• ANC - February 2014; 

• DAY - February 2014; and 

• BUF - TBD 

Typically following publication, a delay occurs to accommodate incorporation of 

the new procedure into aircraft databases before flight operations begin. The 
291

Syracuse procedures published on June 27, 2013 are expected to be available in 

aircraft databases the week of July 21, based on a 28-day cycle Aero Navigation 

database update to the JetBlue (lead carrier at Syracuse) fleet Flight Management 

Systems. Other users may start using the procedure about the same time for the 

same reasons. In accordance with Post-Implementation requirements, utilization 

and assessment steps are conducted once the procedures begin being flown. 

Additionally, associated development costs of these procedures will be tracked. 

Preliminary results related to the effectiveness and utilization for the Syracuse 

procedures are anticipated at the start ofFY 2014. The procedures that are 

developed are RNP-AR (Authorization Required) procedures, which require 

specific crew (training) and aircraft certification (authorization) in order to be 

flown. 

The vendor is contracted to complete this program by the end of May 2014. After 

the procedures are developed and implemented at all five sites, the FAA will 

conduct an assessment of the Third Party Vendor Demonstration Program to 

determine the costs, efficiency and benefits of using third parties to expedite the 

delivery of Performance Based Navigation benefits. 

Internal FAA's stakeholders work in collaboration with ANG Systems Analysis 

and Modeling group to initiate pre-data collection for the Post Implementation 

Procedure utilization tracking, and data collection for compilation of benefits 

analysis and report generation at the first site Syracuse beginning in August 2013. 

A similar approach will be followed for the remaining four sites of utilization data 

collection, and preliminary effectiveness assessment and initial benefits analysis 

start at least 30 days after each publication date. 

FAA is currently capturing costs associated with the execution and implementation 

of this Third Party Vendor Demonstration. The collection and verification cost 

estimates for Syracuse is in progress, with an overall preliminary cost estimate 

report anticipated at the start of FY 2014. 
292

QUESTION: 

ANSWER: 

LATHAM-23 

ATO 

LIBERTY INTEGRATED CONTROL FACILITY 

The FY 2013 request included $95 million as a down payment 

toward a $225 million "air traffic control facility of the 

future". The facility would consolidate several existing 

facilities in the New York - New Jersey - Philadelphia region, 

and was to be called the "Liberty Integrated Control Facility". 

The FY 2014 request contains $235 million for this facility, 

but in the Immediate Infrastructure Investment 

(supplemental) request rather than the base budget. Why 

have you moved this to the supplemental request in FY 

2014, and what does that mean for continued funding in 

future years? 

The FY 2014 Budget provides $10 million in the base facilities and equipment 

(F&E) account to provide additional analysis and planning in support of the 

proposed facility consolidation. A-II Capital BUdgeting rules require that any 

budgetary request for facility funding support usable segments otherwise 

agencies will not be in a position to obligate funds until sufficient budgetary 

authority is available to fund an entire usable segment. To date, the research and 

analytics of a potential future facility have been funded. The FY 14 Immediate 

Infrastructure Investment (supplemental) request for the New York Integrated 

Control Facility (formerly Liberty Integrated Control Facility) funds construction 

of the IeF. 
293

LIBERTY INTEGRATED CONTROL FACILITY 

Latham-24 

ATO 

QUESTIONS: The FY 2013 request included $95 million as a down payment 

toward a $225 million "air traffic controlfacility of the future". 

The facility would consolidate several existing facilities in the 

New York - New Jersey - Philadelphia region, and was to be 

called the "Liberty Integrated Control Facility". The FY 2014 

request contains $235 million for this facility, but in the 

Immediate Infrastructure Investment (supplemental) request 

rather than the base budget. Have you determined a location for 

this facility, and what are your specific plans for FY 2014 to 

move this project forward? 

ANSWER: FAA has not yet identified a location for the new facility. In 

December 2012, the FAA issued a request for information (RFI) to 

gain insight into potential available locations. The RFI expressed 

FAA's openness to all manners of land transfer resulting in Federal 

(FAA) ownership of the land. The RFI was issued solely as vehicle 

for gathering information that could assist with the planning 

process. An RFI does not constitute a solicitation and does not 

require the Government to issue a future solicitation. FAA plans 

to use the information gathered from the RFI in 2014 to validate 

requirements and possibly inform Environmental and Engineering 

studies. 
294

LIBERTY INTEGRATED CONTROL FACILITY 

Latham-25 

ATO 

QUESTION: What other air traffic control facilities do you plan to 

consolidate? 

ANSWER: 

The New York Integrated Control Facility (formerly Liberty Integrated Control 

Facility) intends to combine operations from two facilities: NY Air Radar Traffic 

Control Center (ARTCC) (ZNY) and NY Terminal Rader Approach Control 

(TRACON) (N90). At this time, no other facilities are being considered. 
295

QUESTION: 

ANSWER: 

LIBERTY INTEGRATED CONTROL FACILITY 

Latham-26 

ATO 

Have you identified specific savings that would result from 

consolidation? 

The potential for cost savings that could result from the consolidation are currently 

being identified and evaluated. 
296

"BEST EQUIPPED - BEST SERVED" 

Latham-27 

AJV 

QUESTION: Can you explain FAA's plan or strategy, with milestones and 

measures, to implement "best equipped best served" in a way 

that accelerates equipage by a significant number of users in 

the nation's airspace? 

ANSWER: 

The Federal Aviation Administration is currently conducting a series of 

demonstration projects directly related to the "best equipped-best served" (BEBS) 

concept. The successful outcome of these demonstrations will support a national 

implementation strategy for a set of operations where those operators that have 

invested in modern aircraft navigation equipage would be allowed to take full 

operational advantage of their investment. The goals of these operational 

incentives are to increase the NextGen capability of as many aircraft in the national 

airspace as possible and to increase benefits captured by aligning appropriately 

capable aircraft, air traffic, and airport environments. 

Three demonstration projects in support of this concept are currently in progress or 

under re-evaluation: 

• First initiative proposes utilizing modification to traffic management 

procedures and Area Navigation (RNA V) Required Navigation Performance 

(RNP) Authorization Required (AR) standard instrument approach 

procedures at John F. Kennedy International and Midway airports for 

properly-equipped aircraft to remedy airport configuration conflicts. 

• The second initiative, operational incentives involving ADS-B East Coast 

offshore routes for aircraft equipped with ADB-B OUT rule-compliant 

avionics would be offered. 

• The third initiative offers operational benefit for ADS-B In-Trail Procedures. 

This incentive makes use of ADS-B surveillance to allow for transition to 

optimal altitudes in non-radar airspace, using NextGen capability to improve 

the flexibility for the route of flight when flying over the ocean outside radar 

coverage. 
297

The FAA has developed a program plan (including measurable milestones) to 

support successful development and implementation for the three demonstration 

projects discussed. These milestones include development, simulation, analysis of 

operational incentives scenarios, concept validation and verification (V & V), 

identification and documentation of relevant Air Traffic Management policies and 

procedures, and preparation and execution of applicable training for the air traffic 

controllers and flight crews. 

The FAA also has efforts already underway to deliver benefits to those aircraft that 

already have NextGen capabilities that are distinct from operational incentives. 

Examples of on-going efforts to deliver benefits to those aircraft that already have 

some NextGen capabilities include: 

• The Greener Skies Over Seattle initiative; 

• The Optimized Approach Procedures in the Metroplex effort; 

• Provision of ADS-B surveillance services in the Gulf of Mexico; 

• Wide Area Multilateration (W AM) to track aircraft along difficult 

approaches in Alaska and Colorado; and 

• Upcoming DataComm trials to test departure clearances for aircraft. 
298

"BEST EQUIPPED - BEST SERVED" 

Latham-28 

APL/ANG 

QUESTION: The NextGen Management Board tasked a workgroup to 

identify, by airport, airline candidates for implementation in 

the near term. Where does that effort stand today? 

ANSWER: 

In December 2011, the NextGen Management Board tasked a workgroup to 

identifY a selection of operational candidates/scenarios that would provide specific 

input to the development of an operational incentives policy, identifY and mitigate 

operational issues that may result from widespread adoption of a new service 

prioritization founded on a flight's capabilities, deliver operational benefits, and 

could be piloted in the near-term. 

Workgroup membership included from the Agency's Lines of Business along with 

the industry stakeholders. The potential pool was reduced to the "Top 10" 

candidates through assessment of implementation timeframe, operational viability, 

risk, etc. They are organized into five technological and use areas, referred to as 

"best equipped-best served" (BEBS) 1,2,3,4, and 5. The FAA is currently in 

progress of implementing three of the technological and use areas. 
299

Latham-32 

AFN 

ESTIMATES FOR SERVICES, CONFERENCES, TRAVEL & BONUSES 

QUESTION: For all of FY 2012, and for the first two quarters of FY 2013, 

please provide the amounts and purposes for conferences 

hosted by the FAA. 

ANSWER 

The requested infonnation on conferences is attached. This data was from a 

combination of various sources, including: 

1. Conference request packages approved by the Administrator's office (which 

reflect estimated costs for conferences that involve 20 or more persons); 

2. Data which was already assembled to support web reporting of conferences 

greater than $100,000 as required by OMB memo M-12-12; and 

3. Other documentation that we had collected for other purposes. 

The FAA's accounting system is not designed to accumulate all costs associated 

with a conference. Thus, the attached are estimated costs. 
CONFERENCES HOSTED BY FAA DURING FV 2012 AND FV 2013 

Scope: Conferences hosted by FAA during FY 2012 and FY 2013 through March 31, 2013. 

Sources: This list was assembled from: 

(1) conference request packages approved by the FAA Administrator (20 persons or more attending), which reflect estimated co

12l and materials already assembled for year-end web reporting of conferences >$100,000 as required by OMS memo 12-12

Title 

15th Annual FAA 

Commercial Space 

Transportation 

Conference 

FAA Senior Executives 

Workshop 

ATO Supervisors 

Committee (SUPCOM) 

Annual 

Training Conference 

Avionics and Flight Test 

Standariz1;ltion Workshop 

FAA Safety Management 

System (SMS) FOCU5 

Group 

Office of Aviation Safety 

(AVS) National Awards 

Ceremony 

Dates 

February 15-16, 2012 

April 25-27, 2012 

April 30· May 4, 2012 

May 15-17, 2012 

lune19-21,2012 

July 19,2012 

Location Venue 

The purpose is to further part 

Washington space transportation." The co

Convention transportation industry throug

Washington, DC Center 

This workshop ensured that th

2012 goats, provided a shared 

U.S. Fish and reauthorization bill, shared lea

WHdllfe Service diversity. 

Shephardstown, WV Training Center 

KansasCity,MO 

San AntoniO, TX 

Marriott 

Denver, CO Renaissance 

This conference allowed supe

to present and share informat

Operations,Fllght Service and 

achieved in part with the intro

was adopted by senior leader

J0111O,901. There is no other 

leaders of the Air Traffic Supe

disseminating information. 

This workshop improved avia

better enabled implementatio

writing personnel 

The FAA is in the final stages o

Public Law 111-216. Within th

need to ready themselves to b

conference will prOVide a foru

strategies forthe developmen

will provide strategies that se

developing and implementing 

FAA Recognizes and showcases ex

Headquarters awards, and 9 individual awar

Washington, DC BUilding 

Pagel 
Title Dates 

FAA Enroute Automation July 2012 

Modernization (ERAM) 

Steering Committee and 

National User Team 

(NUT) Conference 

First Annual FAA Flight August 2012 

Standards 

Meeting 

Interest Based 

Communication (IBCI 

Seattle 

August 27-30, 2012 

3rd Annual FAA National August 28-30, 2012 

Civil Rights Training 

Conference, "Airport 

Civil Rights: Get It Right" 

Pilot's Bill of Rights 

Training on the Federal 

Rules of Evidence and 

Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure for FAA 

Enforcement Attorneys 

September 10-17, 2012 

Location 

Memphis, TN 

Long Beach, CA 

Seattle, WA 

Arlington, VA 

Boulder, CO 

Venue 

Courtyard 

Marriott 

Memphis 

Downtown 

The ERAM Steering Committee will dev

Long Beach 

program priorities In the context of sha

needs. Based on this principle, it provid

• Provide guidance and direction aroun

• Propose a commitment of resources 

workforce, and the sites. 

• Maintain shared awareness of succes

program rollout progresses. 

• Prioritize strategic issues as it relates 

decisions, program risks, and overall pr

• Monitor both health and performanc

The agenda will focus on technical disc

Westin Hotel through International Civil Aviation Org

consolidate of recurring bilateral meet

consideration access to foreign nationa

reduce support costs. 

Doubletree IBC is Phase It of the collaborative work

Hotel Seattle signing of E.O. 13522. This training ses

Airport 

Ritz-Carlton, 

and NATCA facility representatives) to 

leading, and in everyday interactions. I

increasing their understanding of why 

new strategies in the collaborative pro

This program will help to achieve the A

performance and ability to provide a m

To provide training to airport grant rec

Pentagon City stakeholders. To address all aspects o

around the country. 

National 

Institute For 

Trial Advocacy 

(NITA) Training 

Facility 

ThiS training ensured that FAA enforce

new Pilot's Bill of Rights (Public Law 11

Transportation Safety Board's rules pra
Title 

Joint Independence/ 

Pittsburgh District 

Meeting 

Part 23 Program 

managers' Meeting 

Dates 

September 11-13, 2012 

September 11-13, 2012 

South/Central Florida September 11-13, 2012 

Study Team Final Outreach Meeting 

Interest Based 

Communication (IBC) Chicago 

I nterest Based 

Communication (IBC) 

Philadelphia 

September 11-13, 2012 

September 18-20, 2012 

Location Venue 

State College, PA Ramada To pursue/facilitate the merger of the 

Kansas City, MO 

Miami,FL 

Chicago,IL 

Philadelphia, PA 

Conference and points of contact, leadership and respo

Golf Hotel 

FAA Central This meeting Is to bring FAA 14 CFR Pa

Region Office (ACOs) together to hear about new an

Auditorium discuss those activlties, share views an

certification activities. Foreign air wor

of communication for ongoing validati

Russia, Australia, New Zealand, Argent

MiamilntL 

Airport 4th 

Floor 

Conduct the third and flnal outreach s

Procedures in the Metroplex (OAPM) 

establishment of, Performance Based 

conference 

room 

airports. The recommended procedur

distances, reduction in fuel burned, an

incorporate the recommendations and 

September 28, 2012. 

Four Points IBC is Phase II of the collaborative wor

Sheraton signing of La. 13522. This training se

Chicago O'Hare and NATCA facility representatives) to 

leading. and in everyday interactions. 

increasing their understanding of why 

new strategies in the collaborative pro

This program will help to achieve the A

performance and ability to provide a m

Embassy Suites ISC is Phase II of the collaborative wor

Hotel signing of E.O. 13522. This training se

and NATCA facility representatives) to 

leading, and In everyday interactions. 

increasing their understanding of why 

new strategies in the collaborative pro

This program will help to achieve the 

performance and ability to provide a m
Title 

Air/Ground 

Communications 

National Operational 

Working Group 

Dates 

September 18-20, 2012 

Aviation Safety InfoShare September 18·20, 2012 

Commercial Space 

Transportation Advisory 

Committee (COMSTAC) 

October 10-11, 2012 

Annual Verification & October 10-11, 2012 

Validation (V&V) Summit 

Location 

FortWorth,TX 

Atlanta,GA 

Washington DC 

Egg Harbor 

Township, NJ 

Venue 

Hilton Hotel Ft. The National Operational Working 

Worth implementation of several nationa

programs, including the Next Gen

Communications Facilities Enhanc

Equipment (RCE), and Radio Frequ

level by the Communications, Info

OMB-300 level programs that are 

over 1S0 sites per year by the FAA

Requirements (P&R) organization 

each Service Area for all A/G Com

Atlanta Marriot The InfoShare Meeting is held twic

Marguis 

National 

their studies from proactive safety 

Operations Quality Assurance (FO

and share safety issues, and conce

strategies. Other voluntary safety 

Maintenance Flight Operational Q

The committee provides informat

Housing Center matters relating to U.s. commerci

exerCise program management or 

affecting the programs on which i

development, consideration, and 

perspective. 

Clarion Hotel The William J. Hughes Technical C

annual two-day Verification and V

evaluation, system engineering, re

tentatively scheduled for 10-11 O

acquisition life cycle V&V, It will p

explore new ways to apply V & V t

promote a quality V & V culture b

support the implementation of ef

The summit also will provide an o

underscore the importance of em

NextGen.Guest speakers will be in

academia. 
Title Dates 

flight Standards Division October 

Managers and 

Professional Airways 

Systems SpeCialists 

(PASS) Leadership 

Meeting /20th Annual 

National Awards 

Ceremony 

NY/NJ/PHL Airspace Redesign Trj Center 

Boundary High Fidelity 

Human in the Loop 

October 22-26, 2012 

Interest Based October 2012 

Communication 

Boston 

End of Season Reviewl October 23·25, 2012 

Collaborative Decision 

Making Meeting 

Location 

Washington, DC 

McLean, VA Boston, MA 

McLean, VA 

Venue 

FAA Building This meeting includes Flight 'Standards 

(PASS) leadership and is designed to pro

representatives. The meeting provides 

subjects to include; best practices, tech

development, This meeting 

will follow a structured agenda over the 

program affords employees an opportu

colleagues in 17 categories; 2 group aw

employees with plaques at the Flight St

MITRE Building NY/NJ/PHLAirspace Redesign Tr! Cente

evaluates the interactions across facility 

downstream impacts of design changes 

structure with the current operations. 

Embassy Suites ISC is Phase II of the collaborative work

Boston Logan signing of E.O. 13522. This training ses

Airport and NATCA facility representatives) to i

leading, and in everyday interactions, In

increasing their understanding of why d

new strategies in the collaborative proc

This program will help to achieve the A

performance and ability to provide a m

MITRE Building The meeting will include an 

what worked well and what did not wo

share insights and new ideas to improv

Making general session meetlng to revi

enhancing the system efficiencies for th
Title Dates 

FAA En Route November 5-9, 2012 

Automation 

Modernization (ERAMJ 

Steering Committee & 

National 

User Team (NUT) 

Conference 

Interest Based November 6- 8, 2012 

Communication (IBC)-Orlando 

Interest Based November 6· 8, 2012 

Communication (IBC)-

San Diego 

location 

KansasCitY,MO 

Orlando, Fl 

San Diego, CA 

Venue 

Marriott Kansas To develop and recommend c

City Downtown shared awareness of program

• Provide guidance and direc

• Propose a commitment of 

workforce, and the sites. 

• Maintain shared awareness 

program rollout progresses. 

• Prioritize strategic issues as 

decisions, program risks, and 

• Monitor both health and pe

Embassy Suites lBC is Phase!! of the collabor

Orlando Airport signing of E.O. 13522. This tr

and NATCA facility represent

leading, and in everyday inte

increasing their understandin

new strategies in the coltabo

This program wi!! help to ach

performance and ability to p

The Bristo! IBC is Phase II of the collabor

Hotel-San Diego signing of E.O. 13522. This tr

and NATCA facility represent

leading, and in everyday inteincreasing their understandin

new strategies in the collabo

This program will help to ach

performance and ability to p
Title 

Continuous lower 

Energy, Emissions and Noise 

(CLEEN) Consortium 

Dates 

November 7-9, 2012 

Third Aviation Climate November 27-29, 2012 

Change 

Research Initiative 

(ACCRI) Symposium 

Interest Based November 27-29, 2012 

Communications (IBC) -

Atlanta 

Interest Based December 4·6, 2012 

Communications (IBC) -

Phoenix 

Interest Based 

Communications (ISC)-

Kansas City 

December 11-13, 2012 

Location 

Atlanta,GA 

Venue 

Aerospace 

A consortium is held every six months 

Systems Design reporting requirements as stlpulated b

laboratory, (ClEEN) program. The consortium also 

Georgia progress with the public in an open ple

Institute of sessions provide opportunities to colla

Technology complementary technology research. A

government only sessions and approx

Severa!, agencies will participate inclu

Virginia Beach, VA Sheraton Third Annual Symposium to discuss th

Atlanta, GA 

Phoenix, AZ 

Kansas City, MO 

Oceanfront 

Virginia Beach 

progress among the ACCRI investigato

Embassy Suites IBC is Phase II of the collaborative wor

Atlanta Airport signing of E.O. 13522. This training se

and NATCA facility representatives) to 

leading, and in everyday interactions. 

increasing their understanding of why 

new strategies in the collaborative pro

This program will help to achieve the A

performance and ability to provide a m

Embarry Suites IBC is Phase II of the collaborative wor

Phoenix-Airport signing of E.O. 13522. This training se

Hilton Hotel 

Kansas City 

Airport 

and NATCA facility representatives) to 

leading, and in everyday interactions. 

increasing their understanding of why 

new strategies in the collaborative pro

This program will help to achieve the A

performance and ability to provide a m

IBC is Phase II of the collaborative wor

signing of E.O. 13522. This training se

and NATCA facUlty representatives) to 

leading, and in everyday interactions. 

increasing their understanding of why 

new strategies in the collaborative pro

This program will help to achieve the A

performance and ability to provide a m
Title 

Transport Airplane 

Directorate Part 25 Program Managers' 

Meeting 

Dates 

January 23-24, 2013 

Interest Based January 29-31, 2013 

Communications (lBC) 

St. Louis, MO 

ProfeSSional Standards January 29-31, 2013 

Philadelphia 

Area Training 

Phoenix Study Team 

Optimization of Airspace 

& Procedures in a 

Metroplex (OAPM) 

outreach meeting 

January 31, 2013 

Location 

Bellevue, WA 

St. LouiS, MO 

Philadelphia, PA Phoenix, AZ 

Venue 

Hyatt Hotel 

To provide aircraft certification office pro

overview of recent and future technical p

procedural improvements for part 25 pro

any updates in part 21 policy and guidan

managers to give feedback to the transp

aircraft certification offices. 

Embassey Suites ISe is Phase /I of the collaborative workg

St, Louis Airport signing of E.O. 13522. This training sessi

and NATCA facility representatives) to id

leading, and in everyday interactions. Int

increaSing their understanding of why di

new strategies in the collaborative proce

This program will help to achieve the Air 

performance and ability to provide a mo

Embassy Suites To provide training for those bargaining 

Philadelphia briefings to management on the ProfeSS

Airport 

US Airways Establish what airspace/airports will be i

Corporate • Establish an understanding of current o

Offices, 4000 E, • Characterize major flows 

Sky Harbor Blvd .• Elicit feedback on effiCient and/or und

• Assess usage level/functionality of curr

challenges 

• Problem areas, sectors, chokepoints 

• SAAs or other airspace constraints 

• Identify planned operationa

• New procedures/projects in developm

• Equipment/challenges Collect input fro

• Outline issues and potential solutions i

• Observe operations, if needed Reques• Recommended by Facilities 

• Create a schedule and agenda for next 
Title 

Operations 

Specifications Working 

Group 

16th Annual FAA 

Commercia! Space 

Transportation 

Conference 

TOTAl 

Dates Location 

February 2013 Washington, DC 

February6-7,2013 Washington, DC 

Venue 

Heritage Center The Operations Specifications Working Gro

Navy Memorial representatives of Part 121 and 135 Air Ca

regarding authorizations, flight procedures

comment and technical input from the air c

authorizations in the form of Operations Sp

National The purpose is to further part of AST's miss

Housing Center space transportation," The conference pro

transportation industry through panel sess
309

Latham-33 

AOC 

ESTIMATES FOR SERVICES, CONFERENCES, TRAVEL & BONUSES 

QUESTION: For all ofFY 2012, and for the first two quarters ofFY 2013, 

please provide the amounts and purposes for contracted public 

relations services. 

ANSWER 

The Federal Aviation Administration did not contract out any public relations 

services during this time period. 
310

Latham-34 

AGC 

ESTIMATES FOR SERVICES, CONFERENCES, TRAVEL AND 

BONUSES 

QUESTION: For all ofFY 2012, and for the first two quarters ofFY 2013, 

please provide the amounts and purposes for outside counsel. 

ANSWER: 

In FY 2012, FAA spent $626, 848.54 on outside counsel. In the first two quarters 

ofFY 2013, FAA spent $1,075,240.89 on outside counsel. All of the outside 

counsel fees were for professional services required to support FAA's defense of 

class action litigation. The services included legal advice on strategic and 

representation issues, review and analysis of legal issues and underlying 

documentation, preparation and conduct of depositions, witness interviews, 

document production, motion reviews, and a myriad of discovery matters. 
311

Latham-35 

AHR 

ESTIMATES FOR SERVICES, CONFERENCES, TRAVEL AND 

BONUSES 

OUESTION: For all of FY 2012, and for the first two quarters of FY 2013, 

please provide the amounts and purposes for workmen's compensation. 

ANSWER: During FY 2012, we accrued $94, 903,988 in workers' compensation 

costs. Of that, $9,059,781 was accrued in medical expenses and $85,844,207 in 

wage loss compensation. 

Through the first two quarters ofFY 2013, we accrued $40,776, 979 in workers' 

compensation costs. Of that, $4,757,095 was accrued in medical expenses and 

$36,019,884 in wage loss compensation. 
312

Latham-36 

ABA 

ESTIMATES FOR SERVICES, CONFERENCES, TRAVEL & BONUSES 

OUESTION: For all ofFY 2012, and for the first two quarters ofFY 2013, 

please provide the amounts and purposes for Senior Executive 

Service personnel travel. 

ANSWER 

The listing of all Senior Executive Service personnel travel during the subject time 

period is below. The list includes a total of3,770 trips taken by 221 executives for 

a total cost of$4.6 million. 
· Arrival

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date De

ALBAUGH, JOEY SITE VISIT 8/20/12 MEALBAUGH, JOEY TRAINING ATTENDANCE 7/26/12 LAALBAUGH, JOEY CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/30112 OKALBAUGH, JOEY CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/24/12 SHALBAUGH, JOEY INFORMATION MEETING 3/5/12 ATALBAUGH, JOEY CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1/9/12 CHALBAUGH, JOEY CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/16/11 OR

ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 11/26/12 PAALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 10/24/12 SE

ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 10/15/12 WA

ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/17112 WA

ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 9/10/12 ST

ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 9/5/12 NEALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 9/4/12 VIN

ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 8/27/12 WAALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 8/20/12 WAALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 8/16112 CHALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 8/6/12 ARALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 7/16/12 WAALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 6/25/12 PAALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 6/20/12 OKALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 6/11112 NE

ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 6/4/12 WAALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 5/31/12 WAALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 4/9/12 WAALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 3/28/12 LAALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 3126/12 KNALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 3/23/12 ME

ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 3/20/12 WA

ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 2/29/12 NEALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 2/27112 WAALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 2/21/12 WAALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 2/13/12 WAALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 2/6/12 WAALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 1/28/12 JAALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 1/23/12 PITALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 1/17/12 MI
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code 

ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G SITE VISIT 1/10/12 

ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 113/12 

ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 12/15111 

ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 12/12/11 ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 12/4/11 

ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 11/29/11 

ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 11/14/11 

ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 11/8111 

ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 11/8/11 ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 11/1/11 ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 10/31/11 ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/20/11 

ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 10/12/11 

ALEXANDER, SUZANNE G INFORMATION MEETING 10/3111 ALFORD, MARTITIA SHERIDAN OTHER TRAVEL 9/10/12 ALFORD, MARTITIA SHERIDAN INFORMATION MEETING 7130112 ALFORD, MARTITIA SHERIDAN INFORMATION MEETING 4/25/12 ALLEN, JOHN M CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/18/13 ALLEN, JOHN M TRAINING ATTENDANCE 2118/13 ALLEN, JOHN M CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/1/12 ALLEN, JOHN M CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/30/12 ALLEN, JOHN M CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/24/12 ALLEN, JOHN M CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/17112 ALLEN, JOHN M INFORMATION MEETING 8/12/12 ALLEN, JOHN M CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 7/25/12 ALLEN, JOHN M CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/18/12 ALLEN, JOHN M CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/11/12 ALLEN, JOHN M CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5/8112 ALLEN, JOHN M CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 517112 ALLEN, JOHN M INFORMATION MEETING 4/24/12 ALLEN, JOHN M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4/16/12 

ALLEN, JOHN M INFORMATION MEETING 3/23/12 

ALLEN, JOHN M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 3/20/12 ALLEN, JOHN M INFORMATION MEETING 3/1112 ALLEN, JOHN M INFORMATION MEETING 2121/12 ALLEN, JOHN M OTHER TRAVEL 2/15/12 

ALLEN, JOHN M SITE VISIT 12114/11 

ALLEN, JOHN M SITE VISIT 12/13/11 

ALLEN, JOHN M SITE VISIT 12/12/11 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

ALLEN. JOHN M SITE VISIT 12111111 ALLEN. JOHN M INFORMATION MEETING 11113111 ALLEN. JOHN M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1117111 ALLEN. JOHN M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10124111 ALLEN, JOHN M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10113/11 ALLEN. JOHN M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/12/11 AMEREIHN. TINA M SITE VISIT 2/1/13 AMEREIHN. TINA M SITE VISIT 1/30/13 AMEREIHN, TINA M SITE VISIT 1/28/13 AMEREIHN. TINA M SITE VISIT 10126/12 AMEREIHN, TINA M SITE VISIT 10/23/12 AMEREIHN. TINA M SITE VISIT 10/21/12 AMEREIHN. TINA M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4/30/12 AMEREIHN. TINA M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4/29/12 AMEREIHN. TINA M CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/24/12 

AMEREIHN. TINA M INFORMATION MEETING 12/5/11 ANDREWS. MALCOLM GEORGE INFORMATION MEETING 2/5113 ANDREWS. MALCOLM GEORGE INFORMATION MEETING 1/30/13 ANDREWS. MALCOLM GEORGE CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/15112 ANDREWS. MALCOLM GEORGE CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/9/12 ANDREWS. MALCOLM GEORGE OTHER TRAVEL 8/23/12 ANDREWS. MALCOLM GEORGE OTHER TRAVEL 8121/12 ANDREWS. MALCOLM GEORGE SITE VISIT 7/19/12 ANDREWS. MALCOLM GEORGE SITE VISIT 7/18/12 ANDREWS. MALCOLM GEORGE SITE VISIT 7/16/12 ANDREWS. MALCOLM GEORGE INFORMATION MEETING 6/13/12 ANDREWS. MALCOLM GEORGE INFORMATION MEETING 6/4/12 ANDREWS. MALCOLM GEORGE INFORMATION MEETING 4126/12 ANDREWS. MALCOLM GEORGE INFORMATION MEETING 2/24/12 ANDREWS. MALCOLM GEORGE OTHER TRAVEL 12/22/11 ANDREWS. MALCOLM GEORGE SITE VISIT 12/19/11 ANDREWS, MALCOLM GEORGE SITE VISIT 11128111 ANDREWS. MALCOLM GEORGE CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/19/11 ANTUNANO, MELCHOR JOAQUIN TRAINING ATTENDANCE 2/3/13 ANTUNANO, MELCHOR JOAQUIN INFORMATION MEETING 1/23/13 ANTUNANO. MELCHOR JOAQUIN CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11/1/12 ANTUNANO. MELCHOR JOAQUIN SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/23/12 

ANTUNANO, MELCHOR JOAQUIN SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/17/12 

ANTUNANO. MELCHOR JOAQUIN SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 9/27/12 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code AOrrtival 

a e 

ANTUNANO, MELCHOR JOAQUIN CONFERENCE ATTENOANCE 9/15/12 

ANTUNANO, MELCHOR JOAQUIN INFORMATION MEETING 8/22/12 

ANTUNANO, MELCHOR JOAQUIN SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/25/12 ANTUNANO, MELCHOR JOAQUIN INFORMATION MEETING 6/6/12 ANTUNANO, MELCHOR JOAQUIN CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5/11112 ANTUNANO, MELCHOR JOAQUIN INFORMATION MEETING 4/27112 

ANTUNANO, MELCHOR JOAQUIN INFORMATION MEETING 4/24/12 ANTUNANO, MELCHOR JOAQUIN TRAINING ATTENDANCE 4/16/12 

ANTUNANO, MELCHOR JOAQUIN TRAINING ATTENDANCE 4/11112 ANTUNANO, MELCHOR JOAQUIN SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 3118/12 ANTUNANO, MELCHOR JOAQUIN INFORMATION MEETING 3/5112 

ANTUNANO, MELCHOR JOAQUIN CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2/14/12 ANTUNANO, MELCHOR JOAQUIN SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11/16/11 ANTUNANO, MELCHOR JOAQUIN INFORMATION MEETING 10/17111 AREL, TIMOTHY L INFORMATION MEETING 11/7/12 AREL, TIMOTHY L INFORMATION MEETING 10/16/12 AREL, TIMOTHY L OTHER TRAVEL 6/11112 AREL, TIMOTHY L INFORMATION MEETING 4/4/12 AREL, TIMOTHY L INFORMATION MEETING 4/2112 AREL, TIMOTHY L TRAINING ATTENDANCE 2/5/12 AREL, TIMOTHY L INFORMATION MEETING 2/1/12 AREL, TIMOTHY L OTHER TRAVEL 1/16/12 AREL, TIMOTHY L OTHER TRAVEL 112/12 AREL, TIMOTHY L TRAINING ATTENDANCE 12/11111 AREL, TIMOTHY L INFORMATION MEETING 12/7/11 AREL, TIMOTHY L INFORMATION MEETING 12/6111 AREL, TIMOTHY L SITE VISIT 11127111 

BABBITT, JEROME RANDOLPH OTHER TRAVEL 11112/11 BABBITT, JEROME RANDOLPH OTHER TRAVEL 11/7/11 

BABBITT, JEROME RANDOLPH OTHER TRAVEL 11/7111 BABBITT, JEROME RANDOLPH OTHER TRAVEL 10/21/11 

BABBITT, JEROME RANDOLPH OTHER TRAVEL 10/19/11 BABBITT, JEROME RANDOLPH CONFERENCE ATTENOANCE 10/17111 

BABBITT, JEROME RANDOLPH CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1019/11 BAHRAMI, ALI INFORMATION MEETING 2/19/13 BAHRAMI, ALI INFORMATION MEETING 1/14/13 

BAHRAMI, ALI INFORMATION MEETING 12/3/12 

BAHRAMI, ALI INFORMATION MEETING 10/21/12 

BAHRAMI, ALI INFORMATION MEETING 10/19/12 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code 

BAHRAMI, ALI INFORMATION MEETING 10114112 BAHRAMI, ALI OTHER TRAVEL 7/3112 BAHRAMI, ALI INFORMATION MEETING 514112 BAHRAMI, ALI INFORMATION MEETING 4124112 BAHRAMI, ALI OTHER TRAVEL 4116112 BAHRAMI, ALI INFORMATION MEETING 419112 BAHRAMI, ALI INFORMATION MEETING 3/12112 BAHRAMI, ALI SITE VISIT 2126112 BAHRAMI, ALI INFORMATION MEETING 1130/12 BAHRAMI, ALI INFORMATION MEETING 1126/12 BAHRAMI, ALI INFORMATION MEETING 1125112 BAHRAMI, ALI INFORMATION MEETING 1122112 BAHRAMI, ALI INFORMATION MEETING 1/18/12 BAHRAMI, ALI INFORMATION MEETING 1/9/12 BAHRAMI, ALI INFORMATION MEETING 12/12111 BAHRAMI, ALI INFORMATION MEETING 11/6/11 BAHRAMI, ALI INFORMATION MEETING 10/24111 BAHRAMI, ALI INFORMATION MEETING 10/16/11 BAKER, DORENDA D INFORMATION MEETING 1130/13 BAKER, DORENDA 0 INFORMATION MEETING 11/14/12 BAKER, DORENDA 0 INFORMATION MEETING 11111/12 BAKER, DORENDA 0 INFORMATION MEETING 10/20/12 BAKER, DORENDA 0 INFORMATION MEETING 10/10/12 BAKER, DORENDA D INFORMATION MEETING 9/19/12 BAKER, DORENDA D INFORMATION MEETING 9/16112 BAKER, DORENDA 0 CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 7/25112 BAKER, DORENDA D SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/25/12 BAKER, DORENDA D SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/11112 BAKER, DORENDA D INFORMATION MEETING 4/24/12 BAKER, DORENDA 0 INFORMATION MEETING 4/9/12 BAKER, DORENDA 0 INFORMATION MEETING 3/25/12 BAKER, DORENDA 0 INFORMATION MEETING 2/26/12 BAKER, DORENDA D INFORMATION MEETING 2/21112 BAKER, DORENDA D CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1/23/12 BAKER, DORENDA D INFORMATION MEETING 11/15111 BAKER, DORENDA D INFORMATION MEETING 11/12/11 BAKER, DORENDA D INFORMATION MEETING 11/10111 BAKER, DORENDA D INFORMATION MEETING 1116/11 BAKER, DORENDA D INFORMATION MEETING 10/24/11 
, Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

BASSO, PETER JOHN SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/23/13 BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 12/10/12 BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 1213/12 BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 9123112 BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 9/18/12 BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 9/16/12 BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 9/4/12 BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 8/28/12 BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 8/5/12 BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 7/9/12 BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 7/1/12 BASSO,PETERJOHN SITE VISIT 6/26/12 BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 6125112 

BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 6/12/12 BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 6/11/12 BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 6/3112 BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 5/22112 BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 5120112 BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 4129112 BASSO, PETER JOHN INFORMATION MEETING 4124/12 BASSO, PETER JOHN INFORMATION MEETING 4117/12 BASSO, PETER JOHN INFORMATION MEETING 3126/12 BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 316/12 BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 1/30/12 BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 1/18/12 BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 12/14/11 BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 1217111 BASSO, PETER JOHN SITE VISIT 12/4/11 BASSO, PETER JOHN INFORMATION MEETING 11/14/11 BEBBLE, DIANNE JEAN SITE VISIT 5/15112 BEBBLE, DIANNE JEAN INFORMATION MEETING 517112 BEBBLE, DIANNE JEAN CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/24/12 BEBBLE, DIANNE JEAN INFORMATION MEETING 4/10/12 BEBBLE, DIANNE JEAN SITE VISIT 3/19/12 BEBBLE, DIANNE JEAN INFORMATION MEETING 11128/11 BERRY, MICHAEL A SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 3/8113 BERRY, MICHAEL A SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 2127113 BERRY, MICHAEL A INFORMATION MEETING 1/24/13 BERRY, MICHAEL A OTHER TRAVEL 11/5112 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code 

BERRY, MICHAEL A CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1013112 BERRY, MICHAEL A OTHER TRAVEL 9115112 BERRY, MICHAEL A CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 919112 BERRY, MICHAEL A CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6128112 BERRY, MICHAEL A CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 616112 BERRY, MICHAEL A OTHER TRAVEL 613112 BERRY, MICHAEL A CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5119112 BERRY, MICHAEL A CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5111112 BERRY, MICHAEL A CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4125112 BERRY, MICHAEL A CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3129112 BERRY, MICHAEL A SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 2110112 BERRY, MICHAEL A OTHER TRAVEL 1112112 BERRY, MICHAEL A OTHER TRAVEL 11115111 BERRY, MICHAEL A SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1015/11 BIBLOW, HEATHER J SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11116111 BIBLOW, HEATHER J SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10111111 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 3131113 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 3124113 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 3/17113 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 3110/13 

BIGGIO, TERRY l OTHER TRAVEL 3/7113 

BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 3/5/13 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 313113 

BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 2124113 

BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 2118113 

BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 2110113 

BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 213/13 

BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 1127113 

BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 1122113 BIGGIO, TERRY l OTHER TRAVEL 1113/13 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 116113 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 12/16/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 12112112 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 11125112 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 11/18112 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 11112112 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 1114112 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 10128112 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 10114112 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code 

BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 10/8/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 9/30/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 9/23/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 9/19112 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 9/16/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 9/9/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 9/4/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 8/26/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 8/19/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 8/12112 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 8/5/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 7129/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 7/22/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 7/11/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 7/1/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 6/24112 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 6/17112 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 6110/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 6/3/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 5/31/12 

BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 5/20/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 5/13/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 4/29/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 4/2/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 3/22/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 3/21112 

BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 3/18/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 3/4/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 2/19/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 2/6/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 1/20/12 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 12129/11 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 12/18111 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 12/5/11 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 11/19111 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 11114/11 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 11113/11 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 11/6/11 BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 10/22/11 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

BIGGIO, TERRY L OTHER TRAVEL 10110111 

BIRD, LARRY S INFORMATION MEETING 118113 BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 314113 BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 313113 BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 311113 BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 12110112 BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 9130112 

BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 9128112 

BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 9118112 BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT OTHER TRAVEL 9114112 

BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT OTHER TRAVEL 9113112 BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT OTHER TRAVEL 816112 BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 7113112 BLACK. BRIAN ELLIOTT OTHER TRAVEL 4125112 BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT OTHER TRAVEL 4123112 BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT OTHER TRAVEL 4116112 BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 314112 BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 312112 BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 312112 BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 311112 BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT OTHER TRAVEL 2117112 BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT OTHER TRAVEL 2116112 BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1217111 BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1117111 BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1115111 BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10129111 

BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10118111 BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1012111 BLACK, BRIAN ELLIOTT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1011111 BOGARD, CLAUDIA LYNN TRAINING ATTENDANCE 6125112 BOGARD, CLAUDIA LYNN TRAINING ATTENDANCE 4126112 BOONE, DAVID MICHAEL TRAINING ATTENDANCE 6112112 BOONE, DAVID MICHAEL INFORMATION MEETING 5121112 BOONE, DAVID MICHAEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4125112 BOONE, DAVID MICHAEL OTHER TRAVEL 1111112 BOONE, DAVID MICHAEL OTHER TRAVEL 1219111 BOONE, DAVID MICHAEL OTHER TRAVEL 11118111 BOONE, DAVID MICHAEL OTHER TRAVEL 11110111 BOONE, DAVID MICHAEL OTHER TRAVEL 10128111 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code 

BOONE, DAVID MICHAEL OTHER TRAVEL 10/21/11 BOONE, DAVID MICHAEL OTHER TRAVEL 10/1111 BOSTICK, CARROL YN JULIANNE SITE VISIT 1/16/13 BOSTICK, CARROL YN JULIANNE SITE VISIT 7/10/12 BOSTICK, CARROL YN JULIANNE INFORMATION MEETING 6/18/12 BOSTICK, CARROL YN JULIANNE TRAINING ATIENDANCE 6/12/12 BOSTICK. CARROL YN JULIANNE INFORMATION MEETING 4/26112 BOTELER, MELANIE E TRAINING ATIENDANCE 4/15112 BOTELER, MELANIE E INFORMATION MEETING 11/28/11 BOTELER, MELANIE E TRAINING A TIENDANCE 10/17/11 BOWEN, DAVID M CONFERENCE ATIENDANCE 10116/11 BRISTOL, TERI L OTHER TRAVEL 3/28/13 BRISTOL, TERI L CONFERENCE ATIENDANCE 3/5/13 BRISTOL, TERI L CONFERENCE ATIENDANCE 217/13 

BRISTOL, TERI L SITE VISIT 2/1/13 

BRISTOL, TERI L SITE VISIT 1/30/13 BRISTOL, TERI L SITE VISIT 1/30/13 

BRISTOL, TERI L INFORMATION MEETING 1/12113 BRISTOL, TERI L CONFERENCEATIENDANCE 12113/12 BRISTOL, TERI L OTHER TRAVEL 11/28112 BRISTOL, TERI L INFORMATION MEETING 11/18/12 BRISTOL, TERI L INFORMATION MEETING 11114112 BRISTOL, TERI L OTHER TRAVEL 9/29/12 BRISTOL, TERI L INFORMATION MEETING 9/5112 BRISTOL, TERI L SITE VISIT 8/1/12 

BRISTOL, TERI L INFORMATION MEETING 7/24/12 BRISTOL, TERI L SITE VISIT 7/2112 BRISTOL, TERI L INFORMATION MEETING 6/27/12 BRISTOL, TERI L INFORMATION MEETING 5/14112 BRISTOL, TERI L INFORMATION MEETING 517112 BRISTOL, TERI L INFORMATION MEETING 5/2/12 BRISTOL, TERI L INFORMATION MEETING 4/26/12 BRISTOL, TERI L INFORMATION MEETING 4/24/12 BRISTOL, TERI L INFORMATION MEETING 4/17112 BRISTOL, TERI L INFORMATION MEETING 3/19/12 BRISTOL, TERI L CONFERENCEATIENDANCE 3110/12 BRISTOL, TERI L INFORMATION MEETING 2129/12 BRISTOL, TERI L INFORMATION MEETING 2/21/12 BRISTOL, TERI L INFORMATION MEETING 2/16/12 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code 

BRISTOL, TERI L INFORMATION MEETING 1130112 BRISTOL, TERI L SITE VISIT 1130112 BRISTOL, TERI L CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1123112 BRISTOL, TERI L INFORMATION MEETING 1117112 BRISTOL, TERI L OTHER TRAVEL 12122111 BRISTOL, TERI L OTHER TRAVEL 12119111 BRISTOL, TERI L OTHER TRAVEL 12113111 BRISTOL, TERI L SITE VISIT 11130111 BRISTOL, TERI L SITE VISIT 11128111 BRISTOL, TERI L OTHER TRAVEL 11115111 

BRISTOL, TERI L OTHER TRAVEL 1118111 BRISTOL, TERI L OTHER TRAVEL 10127111 BRISTOL, TERI L OTHER TRAVEL 10126111 BRISTOL, TERI L OTHER TRAVEL 10118111 BRISTOL, TERI L SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1016111 BROWN, LAURA JENNINGS CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1119111 BROWN, LAURA JENNINGS INFORMATION MEETING 1117111 BRUNER, TERESA THOMPSON OTHER TRAVEL 2125113 BRUNER, TERESA THOMPSON OTHER TRAVEL 2111113 BRUNER, TERESA THOMPSON OTHER TRAVEL 12118112 BRUNER, TERESA THOMPSON OTHER TRAVEL 1213112 BRUNER, TERESA THOMPSON OTHER TRAVEL 11112112 BRUNER, TERESA THOMPSON OTHER TRAVEL 10122112 BRUNER, TERESA THOMPSON OTHER TRAVEL 10115112 BRUNER, TERESA THOMPSON OTHER TRAVEL 9119112 BRUNER, TERESA THOMPSON OTHER TRAVEL 919112 BRUNER, TERESA THOMPSON OTHER TRAVEL 8114112 BRUNER, TERESA THOMPSON OTHER TRAVEL 7129112 BRUNER, TERESA THOMPSON OTHER TRAVEL 6113112 BRUNER, TERESA THOMPSON OTHER TRAVEL 511112 BRUNER, TERESA THOMPSON OTHER TRAVEL 4124112 BRUNER, TERESA THOMPSON OTHER TRAVEL 419/12 BRUNER, TERESA THOMPSON OTHER TRAVEL 3/28/12 BRUNER, TERESA THOMPSON OTHER TRAVEL 2/27/12 BRUNER, TERESA THOMPSON OTHER TRAVEL 2/13/12 BRUNER, TERESA THOMPSON OTHER TRAVEL 1/9112 BURKE, GREGORY D OTHER TRAVEL 3/1/13 BURKE, GREGORY D INFORMATION MEETING 1112113 BURKE, GREGORY D CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11128112 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

BURKE, GREGORY 0 OTHER TRAVEL 11110/12 BURKE, GREGORY 0 OTHER TRAVEL 11/7112 BURKE, GREGORY 0 SITE VISIT 10/27/12 

BURKE, GREGORY 0 CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/17/12 

BURKE, GREGORY 0 SITE VISIT 10/12112 BURKE, GREGORY 0 SITE VISIT 10/5/12 BURKE, GREGORY 0 CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 7/25112 BURKE, GREGORY 0 CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/26/12 BURKE, GREGORY D CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/26/12 BURKE, GREGORY D SITE VISIT 5/31/12 BURKE, GREGORY D SITE VISIT 5/23/12 BURKE, GREGORY 0 CONFERENCEATTENOANCE 4/30/12 BURKE, GREGORY 0 TRAINING ATTENDANCE 4/26/12 BURKE, GREGORY 0 SITE VISIT 4/13/12 BURKE, GREGORY 0 OTHER TRAVEL 4/3/12 BURKE, GREGORY 0 CONFERENCEATTENOANCE 3/20/12 BURKE, GREGORY 0 CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/14112 BURKE, GREGORY 0 CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2/15112 BURKE, GREGORY 0 OTHER TRAVEL 1127/12 BURKE, GREGORY 0 OTHER TRAVEL 1/25112 BURKE, GREGORY D OTHER TRAVEL 1/23/12 BURKE, GREGORY D CONFERENCE A TTENOANCE 1/17112 BURKE, GREGORY D OTHER TRAVEL 1/3/12 BURKE, GREGORY D OTHER TRAVEL 12/30/11 BURKE, GREGORY D SITE VISIT 12/22111 BURKE, GREGORY D SITE VISIT 12/13/11 BURKE, GREGORY D SITE VISIT 12/12111 BURKE, GREGORY 0 INFORMATION MEETING 10/4/11 BURKE, GREGORY D SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/3/11 BURLESON, CARL E INFORMATION MEETING 1/7/13 BURLESON, CARL E INFORMATION MEETING 11/7112 BURLESON, CARL E INFORMATION MEETING 11/5/12 BURLESON, CARL E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 9/19/12 BURLESON, CARL E CONFERENCEATTENOANCE 6/18/12 BURLESON, CARL E CONFERENCEATTENOANCE 5/23/12 BURLESON, CARL E INFORMATION MEETING 5/14/12 BURLESON, CARL E INFORMATION MEETING 4/26/12 BURLESON, CARL E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/8112 BURLESON, CARL E INFORMATION MEETING 11/1/11 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

BURLESON, CARL E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/18/11 BURNHAM, KRISTEN GOULD CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/17/12 BURNHAM, KRISTEN GOULD CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/12112 BURNHAM, KRISTEN GOULD INFORMATION MEETING 4/24/12 BURNHAM, KRISTEN GOULD CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11/8/11 BURRUS, CARL W CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 7/28/12 BURRUS, CARL W CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/24/12 

BURRUS, CARL W SITE VISIT 11116/11 

CANNON, RICKIE P SITE VISIT 2124/13 CANNON, RICKIE P SITE VISIT 2/4/13 CANNON, RICKIE P SITE VISIT 1/30/13 CANNON, RICKIE P SITE VISIT 11/28/12 CANNON, RICKIE P SITE VISIT 11/14/12 CANNON, RICKIE P SITE VISIT 10/23112 CANNON, RICKIE P INFORMATION MEETING 6/18/12 CANNON, RICKIE P INFORMATION MEETING 317112 

CANNON, RICKIE P INFORMATION MEETING 3/6112 

CANNON, RICKIE P SITE VISIT 3/1112 CANNON, RICKIE P SITE VISIT 2/29/12 

CANNON, RICKIE P CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1215111 CANNON, RICKIE P INFORMATION MEETING 11/28/11 CAPE2ZUTO, VINCENT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 3/5/13 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 3/4/13 

CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2/25/13 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT SITE VISIT 2/5/13 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT SITE VISIT 12/20/12 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11/13/12 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT SITE VISIT 10/25112 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/17112 

CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/15112 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT SITE VISIT 9/24/12 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9117112 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT SITE VISIT 7/31112 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/26/12 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT SITE VISIT 6/4/12 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5/21/12 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5/8112 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/26112 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4/10/12 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code ADrrtival 

a e 

CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT SITE VISIT 3/20/12 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT SITE VISIT 2/24/12 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2/14/12 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1/3/12 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT SITE VISIT 12/22111 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT SITE VISIT 12/13/11 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11129/11 

CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT INFORMATION MEETING 11/14/11 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1116111 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT SITE VISIT 10/18111 CAPEZZUTO, VINCENT INFORMATION MEETING 10/3/11 CHIN, DAVID K INFORMATION MEETING 8/22112 CHIN, DAVID K SITE VISIT 8/1/12 CHIN, DAVID K CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/26112 CHIN, DAVID K INFORMATION MEETING 6/17/12 CHIN, DAVID K INFORMATION MEETING 6/14/12 CHIN, DAVID K CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5/22/12 CHIN, DAVID K INFORMATION MEETING 5/1112 CHIN, DAVID K INFORMATION MEETING 4126/12 CHIN, DAVID K CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3113112 CHIN, DAVID K INFORMATION MEETING 2113/12 CHIN, DAVID K INFORMATION MEETING 12/5/11 

CHIN, DAVID K INFORMATION MEETING 10123/11 

CINTRON, MELVIN 0 CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/3/12 CINTRON, MELVIN 0 CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 7/22/12 CINTRON, MELVIN 0 SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 5/29/12 CINTRON, MELVIN 0 INFORMATION MEETING 4/24/12 CINTRON, MELVIN 0 SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4/23/12 CINTRON, MELVIN 0 CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/27/12 CINTRON, MELVIN 0 CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2/22/12 CINTRON, MELVIN 0 CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2/21/12 CINTRON, MELVIN 0 CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2/14/12 

CIRILLO, MICHAELA INFORMATION MEETING 517/12 

CIRILLO, MICHAEL A INFORMATION MEETING 4/26/12 

CIRILLO, MICHAEL A INFORMATION MEETING 10/25/11 COCHRAN, WALTER R SITE VISIT 2/27113 COCHRAN, WALTER R SITE VISIT 1/30/13 COCHRAN, WALTER R SITE VISIT 12/18112 

COCHRAN, WALTER R SITE VISIT 12/17112 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code, 

COCHRAN, WALTER R OTHER TRAVEL 11/26112 

COCHRAN, WALTER R OTHER TRAVEL 11121112 COCHRAN, WALTER R SITE VISIT 9/28112 COCHRAN, WALTER R SITE VISIT 9/19/12 COCHRAN, WALTER R SITE VISIT 9/18/12 COCHRAN, WALTER R SITE VISIT 9/17/12 COCHRAN, WALTER R OTHER TRAVEL 9/10/12 COCHRAN, WALTER R OTHER TRAVEL 7/25112 COCHRAN, WALTER R SITE VISIT 7/24/12 

COCHRAN, WALTER R OTHER TRAVEL 6/28/12 COCHRAN, WALTER R SITE VISIT 5/16/12 COCHRAN, WALTER R SITE VISIT 5/15/12 COCHRAN, WALTER R SITE VISIT 5/13112 COCHRAN, WALTER R OTHER TRAVEL 5/9/12 COCHRAN, WALTER R OTHER TRAVEL 4/30/12 COCHRAN, WALTER R OTHER TRAVEL 4/27/12 

COCHRAN, WALTER R OTHER TRAVEL 4/26112 

COCHRAN, WALTER R OTHER TRAVEL 4/25/12 COCHRAN, WALTER R OTHER TRAVEL 3/30/12 COCHRAN, WALTER R SITE VISIT 3/28/12 COCHRAN, WALTER R SITE VISIT 2/29/12 COCHRAN, WALTER R SITE VISIT 2/27/12 

COCHRAN, WALTER R OTHER TRAVEL 2/15/12 COCHRAN, WALTER R OTHER TRAVEL 2/8/12 COCHRAN, WALTER R OTHER TRAVEL 2/6112 COCHRAN, WALTER R SITE VISIT 2/2/12 COCHRAN, WALTER R SITE VISIT 1/27112 COCHRAN, WALTER R SITE VISIT 1/24/12 COCHRAN, WALTER R OTHER TRAVEL 1/18/12 COCHRAN, WALTER R OTHER TRAVEL 1/17112 COCHRAN, WALTER R OTHER TRAVEL 1/12112 

COCHRAN, WALTER R SITE VISIT 12119/11 

COCHRAN, WALTER R OTHER TRAVEL 10/20/11 COOPER, BARRY 0 INFORMATION MEETING 3/19113 COOPER, BARRY 0 INFORMATION MEETING 2125113 COOPER, BARRY 0 INFORMATION MEETING 2/11/13 

COOPER, BARRY 0 SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/25/13 COOPER, BARRY 0 INFORMATION MEETING 1/14/13 COOPER, BARRY 0 INFORMATION MEETING 1/9113 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Tnp Purpose Code 

COOPER, BARRY D INFORMATION MEETING 12/11/12 COOPER, BARRY D INFORMATION MEETING 12/5112 COOPER, BARRY D SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11/26/12 COOPER, BARRY D INFORMATION MEETING 11/12/12 COOPER, BARRY D INFORMATION MEETING 10/30/12 COOPER, BARRY D INFORMATION MEETING 10/22/12 COOPER, BARRY D INFORMATION MEETING 10/15/12 COOPER, BARRY D CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/9/12 COOPER, BARRY D INFORMATION MEETING 9/25/12 COOPER, BARRY D CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/16/12 COOPER, BARRY D CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/9112 COOPER, BARRY D INFORMATION MEETING 8/28/12 COOPER, BARRY D INFORMATION MEETING 8/6112 COOPER, BARRY D CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 8/2/12 COOPER, BARRY D OTHER TRAVEL 7/24/12 COOPER, BARRY D INFORMATION MEETING 7110112 COOPER, BARRY D SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/21112 COOPER, BARRY D INFORMATION MEETING 6/6/12 COOPER, BARRY D INFORMATION MEETING 5/14/12 COOPER, BARRY D CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 517112 COOPER, BARRY D INFORMATION MEETING 4/24/12 COOPER, BARRY D INFORMATION MEETING 4/23/12 COOPER, BARRY D CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/12/12 COOPER, BARRY D INFORMATION MEETING 4/9112 COOPER, BARRY D OTHER TRAVEL 4/3/12 COOPER, BARRY D INFORMATION MEETING 4/2/12 COOPER, BARRY D INFORMATION MEETING 3/21112 

COOPER, BARRY D CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/12112 

COOPER, BARRY D CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/5/12 

COOPER, BARRY D OTHER TRAVEL 2127112 

COOPER, BARRY D OTHER TRAVEL 2/21112 COOPER, BARRY D OTHER TRAVEL 2/12112 

COOPER, BARRY D OTHER TRAVEL 2/6/12 COOPER, BARRY D OTHER TRAVEL 1/30/12 COOPER, BARRY D INFORMATION MEETING 1/19/12 COOPER, BARRY D INFORMATION MEETING 1/11112 COOPER, BARRY D SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/9/12 COOPER, BARRY D SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11130111 COOPER, BARRY D INFORMATION MEETING 11/15/11 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date ____ 

COOPER, BARRY D INFORMATION MEETING 1117111 COOPER, BARRY D OTHER TRAVEL 11/2111 COOPER, BARRY D SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10111111 COOPER, BARRY D OTHER TRAVEL 1016111 COOPER, BARRY D INFORMATION MEETING 10/4111 COOPER, STEVEN I SITE VISIT 1212112 COOPER, STEVEN I SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10125112 COOPER, STEVEN I INFORMATION MEETING 4/24112 COOPER, STEVEN I CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3124112 COOPER, STEVEN I INFORMATION MEETING 315112 COOPER,STEVENI INFORMATION MEETING 119112 COOPER, STEVEN I SITE VISIT 12112111 COOPER, STEVEN I SITE VISIT 12/4/11 COOPER, STEVEN I CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10125111 COPPEDGE, ADRIENNE MICHELE INFORMATION MEETING 2110/13 COPPEDGE, ADRIENNE MICHELE INFORMATION MEETING 1018112 COPPEDGE, ADRIENNE MICHELE INFORMATION MEETING 9118112 COPPEDGE, ADRIENNE MICHELE INFORMATION MEETING 915112 COPPEDGE, ADRIENNE MICHELE INFORMATION MEETING 817112 COPPEDGE, ADRIENNE MICHELE INFORMATION MEETING 7118112 COPPEDGE, ADRIENNE MICHELE SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/27112 COPPEDGE, ADRIENNE MICHELE INFORMATION MEETING 5/2112 COPPEDGE, ADRIENNE MICHELE INFORMATION MEETING 4124112 COPPEDGE, ADRIENNE MICHELE INFORMATION MEETING 419/12 COPPEDGE, ADRIENNE MICHELE INFORMATION MEETING 317112 COPPEDGE, ADRIENNE MICHELE INFORMATION MEETING 311112 COPPEDGE, ADRIENNE MICHELE INFORMATION MEETING 2114112 COPPEDGE, ADRIENNE MICHELE INFORMATION MEETING 212112 COPPEDGE, ADRIENNE MICHELE INFORMATION MEETING 1112111 COPPEDGE, ADRIENNE MICHELE INFORMATION MEETING 10124111 COPPEDGE, ADRIENNE MICHELE INFORMATION MEETING 1015/11 CORBETT, AMY L CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3112113 

CORBETT, AMY L INFORMATION MEETING 2127113 

CORBETT, AMY L INFORMATION MEETING 2111113 

CORBETT, AMY L INFORMATION MEETING 1131113 CORBETT, AMY L INFORMATION MEETING 11126112 

CORBETT, AMY L INFORMATION MEETING 11113112 

CORBETT, AMY L INFORMATION MEETING 10121112 CORBETT, AMY L INFORMATION MEETING 10115112 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

CORBETT, AMY l INFORMATION MEETING 9127112 CORBETT, AMY l SITE VISIT 8124112 CORBETT, AMY l SITE VISIT 8122112 CORBETT, AMY l INFORMATION MEETING 818112 CORBETT, AMY l SITE VISIT 7126112 CORBETT, AMY l SITE VISIT 7125112 CORBETT, AMY l INFORMATION MEETING 6127112 

CORBETT, AMY l SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 611112 CORBETT, AMY l INFORMATION MEETING 4124112 CORBETT, AMY l INFORMATION MEETING 419112 

CORBETT, AMY l INFORMATION MEETING 3128112 CORBETT, AMY l CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 317112 CORBETT, AMY L INFORMATION MEETING 2123112 

CORBETT, AMY L INFORMATION MEETING 2122112 CORBETT, AMY L INFORMATION MEETING 2113112 CORBETT, AMY L SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 211112 CORBETT, AMY l INFORMATION MEETING 1118112 

CORBETT, AMY l INFORMATION MEETING 11129111 

CORBETT, AMY L INFORMATION MEETING 1111111 CORBETT, AMY L INFORMATION MEETING 10124111 COX, VICTORIA H INFORMATION MEETING 1214112 COX, VICTORIA H INFORMATION MEETING 11112112 COX, VICTORIA H INFORMATION MEETING 1013112 COX, VICTORIA H INFORMATION MEETING 914112 COX, VICTORIA H INFORMATION MEETING 7122112 COX, VICTORIA H SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6126112 COX, VICTORIA H INFORMATION MEETING 6117112 COX, VICTORIA H INFORMATION MEETING 5123112 COX, VICTORIA H INFORMATION MEETING 5114112 COX, VICTORIA H INFORMATION MEETING 4126112 

COX, VICTORIA H INFORMATION MEETING 3115112 COX, VICTORIA H INFORMATION MEETING 315112 COX, VICTORIA H INFORMATION MEETING 2120112 COX, VICTORIA H INFORMATION MEETING 219112 COX, VICTORIA H INFORMATION MEETING 211112 COX, VICTORIA H SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 119112 COX, VICTORIA H INFORMATION MEETING 12122111 COX, VICTORIA H INFORMATION MEETING 12113111 COX, VICTORIA H INFORMATION MEETING 1119111 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code ________ 

COX, VICTORIA H INFORMATION MEETING 1117111 COX, VICTORIA H INFORMATION MEETING 10/20111 CRABTREE, GENE T OTHER TRAVEL 1/29/13 CRABTREE, GENE T OTHER TRAVEL 1/2/13 CRABTREE, GENE T OTHER TRAVEL 10/1112 CRABTREE, GENE T SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 9/18112 CRABTREE, GENE T SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 9/17112 CRABTREE, GENE T OTHER TRAVEL 9/13/12 

CRABTREE, GENE T OTHER TRAVEL 9/3112 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 8/27/12 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 8/6112 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 7/23/12 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 7/16112 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 7/9/12 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 6/27112 

CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 6118/12 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 6/4112 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 5/30112 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 5/21112 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 5/15112 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 517112 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 4/30112 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 4/14/12 

CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 4/9112 CRABTREE, GENE T OTHER TRAVEL 3123/12 CRABTREE, GENE T OTHER TRAVEL 3/19/12 

CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 3/14/12 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 3/12/12 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 3/5112 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 2/28/12 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 2/6/12 

CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 1/23/12 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 1/20/12 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 1/19/12 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 1/18112 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 1/17112 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 1/16112 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 1/13/12 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 1/9112 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Tnp Purpose Code Date 

CRABTREE, GENE T SITE VISIT 12119111 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 12112111 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 1215111 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 11129111 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 11115111 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 1114111 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 1112111 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 10131111 CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 10124111 

CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 10119111 

CRABTREE, GENE T INFORMATION MEETING 1013111 

CREAMER, STEPHEN PATRICK INFORMATION MEETING 2120113 CREAMER, STEPHEN PATRICK INFORMATION MEETING 211113 CREAMER, STEPHEN PATRICK INFORMATION MEETING 116113 CREAMER, STEPHEN PATRICK INFORMATION MEETING 1213112 CREAMER, STEPHEN PATRICK INFORMATION MEETING 11118112 CREAMER, STEPHEN PATRICK INFORMATION MEETING 10117112 CREAMER, STEPHEN PATRICK INFORMATION MEETING 911112 CREAMER, STEPHEN PATRICK INFORMATION MEETING 8116112 CREAMER, STEPHEN PATRICK OTHER TRAVEL 7115112 CREAMER, STEPHEN PATRICK CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 719/12 CREAMER, STEPHEN PATRICK INFORMATION MEETING 6123112 

CREAMER, STEPHEN PATRICK INFORMATION MEETING 5121112 

CREAMER, STEPHEN PATRICK INFORMATION MEETING 513112 CREAMER, STEPHEN PATRICK INFORMATION MEETING 4119112 CREAMER, STEPHEN PATRICK CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 316112 CREAMER, STEPHEN PATRICK INFORMATION MEETING 1214111 CREAMER, STEPHEN PATRICK CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11112111 CREAMER, STEPHEN PATRICK CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1119111 CREAMER, STEPHEN PATRICK CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1112111 

CREAMER, STEPHEN PATRICK INFORMATION MEETING 10127111 CREAMER, STEPHEN PATRICK CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1013111 

DALTON, SARAH PEASE SITE VISIT 2126/13 DALTON, SARAH PEASE INFORMATION MEETING 217113 DALTON, SARAH PEASE INFORMATION MEETING 1128/13 

DALTON, SARAH PEASE INFORMATION MEETING 12117112 DALTON, SARAH PEASE OTHER TRAVEL 711/12 DECLEENE, BRUCE E INFORMATION MEETING 2126113 DECLEENE, BRUCE E INFORMATION MEETING 2112113 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Tnp Purpose Code Date 

DECLEENE, BRUCE E INFORMATION MEETING 2/6/13 DECLEENE, BRUCE E INFORMATION MEETING 1/28/13 DECLEENE, BRUCE E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1122/13 DECLEENE, BRUCE E INFORMATION MEETING 116113 DECLEENE, BRUCE E INFORMATION MEETING 12/18/12 DECLEENE, BRUCE E SITE VISIT 12/4/12 O

DECLEENE, BRUCE E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11/25/12 

DECLEENE, BRUCE E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/17112 ADECLEENE, BRUCE E INFORMATION MEETING 9/11/12 

DECLEENE, BRUCE E INFORMATION MEETING 5/23/12 DECLEENE, BRUCE E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 5/14/12 DECLEENE, BRUCE E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/29/12 ADECLEENE, BRUCE E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4/19/12 DECLEENE, BRUCE E INFORMATION MEETING 3/19/12 DECLEENE, BRUCE E INFORMATION MEETING 2/2/12 DECLEENE, BRUCE E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1/23/12 DELEON, BENITO J INFORMATION MEETING 2/25/13 DELEON, BENITO J INFORMATION MEETING 2/6/13 DELEON, BENITO J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1/6/13 WDELEON, BENITO J INFORMATION MEETING 12/17/12 DELEON, BENITO J INFORMATION MEETING 11/1/12 DELEON, BENITO J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/3/12 DELEON, BENITO J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/17/12 DELEON, BENITO J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/10/12 DELEON, BENITO J INFORMATION MEETING 8/21/12 DELEON, BENITO J INFORMATION MEETING 8/8/12 

DELEON, BENITO J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/25/12 

DELEON, BENITO J INFORMATION MEETING 6/15/12 DELEON, BENITO J INFORMATION MEETING 6/6/12 

DELEON, BENITO J INFORMATION MEETING 5/30/12 DELEON, BENITO J INFORMATION MEETING 5/29/12 DELEON, BENITO J INFORMATION MEETING 5/23/12 DELEON, BENITO J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5/20/12 DELEON, BENITO J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4125/12 DELEON, BENITO J SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4/17112 VDELEON, BENITO J INFORMATION MEETING 4/12/12 DELEON, BENITO J INFORMATION MEETING 3/27/12 

DELEON, BENITO J INFORMATION MEETING 3/20/12 DELEON, BENITO J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/6/12 
Traveler Name i Trip Purpose Code I 

DELEON, BENITO J INFORMATION MEETING 2129112 

DELEON, BENITO J INFORMATION MEETING 217112 DELEON, BENITO J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1126112 DELEON, BENITO J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 118112 DELEON, BENITO J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1215111 DELEON, BENITO J SITE VISIT 11121111 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 3118113 

DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 3111113 

DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 2119113 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 2111113 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 214113 DOMINGO, RICARDO OTHER TRAVEL 117113 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 12110112 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 1213112 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 11127112 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 10124112 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 10115112 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 1012112 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 9110112 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 8127112 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 8122112 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 7130112 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 6118112 

DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 513112 DOMINGO, RICARDO CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4127112 

DOMINGO, RICARDO CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4124112 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 417112 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 415112 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 412112 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 3119112 

DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 2128112 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 216112 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 118112 

DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 113112 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 12111111 

DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 1211111 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 11120111 DOMINGO, RICARDO TRAINING ATTENDANCE 1117111 DOMINGO, RICARDO OTHER TRAVEL 1112111 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code i Date 

DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 10131111 DOMINGO, RICARDO INFORMATION MEETING 10111111 

DOMINIK, CYNTHIA A INFORMATION MEETING 3112113 DOMINIK, CYNTHIA A SITE VISIT 3111113 

DOMINIK, CYNTHIA A INFORMATION MEETING 2/23113 

DOMINIK, CYNTHIA A OTHER TRAVEL 1/20/13 

DOMINIK, CYNTHIA A OTHER TRAVEL 12/9112 

DOMINIK, CYNTHIA A OTHER TRAVEL 10/28/12 DOMINIK, CYNTHIA A OTHER TRAVEL 9/9112 DOMINIK, CYNTHIA A OTHER TRAVEL 8/18112 DOMINIK, CYNTHIA A OTHER TRAVEL 8/12/12 

DOMINIK, CYNTHIA A OTHER TRAVEL 8/12/12 DOMINIK, CYNTHIA A OTHER TRAVEL 6124/12 

DOMINIK, CYNTHIA A INFORMATION MEETING 6/2112 DOMINIK, CYNTHIA A OTHER TRAVEL 3/11/12 DOMINIK, CYNTHIA A OTHER TRAVEL 10/11/11 DOUGLAS, STEVEN W CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/17/13 DOUGLAS, STEVEN W INFORMATION MEETING 1/29113 

DOUGLAS, STEVEN W INFORMATION MEETING 1/27113 DOUGLAS, STEVEN W INFORMATION MEETING 1/6113 DOUGLAS, STEVEN W INFORMATION MEETING 12/17/12 DOUGLAS, STEVEN W INFORMATION MEETING 11/6/12 DOUGLAS, STEVEN W INFORMATION MEETING 9/30112 DOUGLAS, STEVEN W CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/17/12 DOUGLAS, STEVEN W CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 8/12/12 DOUGLAS, STEVEN W INFORMATION MEETING 7/25112 

DOUGLAS, STEVEN W INFORMATION MEETING 7/23/12 DOUGLAS, STEVEN W SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/11/12 

DOUGLAS, STEVEN W SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/5112 DOUGLAS, STEVEN W SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/3/12 DOUGLAS, STEVEN W CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/25/12 DOUGLAS, STEVEN W CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/10112 DOUGLAS, STEVEN W CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 412112 

DOUGLAS, STEVEN W INFORMATION MEETING 3/19/12 

DOUGLAS, STEVEN W SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/30/12 DOUGLAS, STEVEN W CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1/23/12 DOUGLAS, STEVEN W INFORMATION MEETING 1/17112 DOUGLAS, STEVEN W INFORMATION MEETING 11/14111 

DOUGLAS, STEVEN W TRAINING ATTENDANCE 11n!11 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code 

DOUGLAS, STEVEN W INFORMATION MEETING 10/31/11 DOUGLAS, STEVEN W INFORMATION MEETING 10/18/11 DOUGLAS, STEVEN W SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1019/11 DUCHARME, RICHARD J SITE VISIT 8/14112 DUCHARME, RICHARD J SITE VISIT 7/30/12 DUCHARME, RICHARD J OTHER TRAVEL 7/11/12 DUCHARME, RICHARD J OTHER TRAVEL 7/10/12 DUCHARME, RICHARD J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/20112 DUCHARME, RICHARD J OTHER TRAVEL 6/6112 DUCHARME, RICHARD J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5/23/12 DUCHARME, RICHARD J SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4/30/12 DUCHARME, RICHARD J INFORMATION MEETING 4/26/12 DUCHARME, RICHARD J SITE VISIT 4/22112 DUCHARME, RICHARD J SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4111/12 DUCHARME, RICHARD J OTHER TRAVEL 3/27/12 DUCHARME, RICHARD J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/2/12 DUCHARME, RICHARD J SITE VISIT 2/7/12 DUCHARME, RICHARD J SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 2/1/12 DUCHARME, RICHARD J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1/24/12 DUCHARME, RICHARD J INFORMATION MEETING 1/17112 DUCHARME, RICHARD J SITE VISIT 12/12111 DUCHARME, RICHARD J INFORMATION MEETING 12/5111 

DUCHARME, RICHARD J SITE VISIT 11/2111 

DUCHARME, RICHARD J SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/16/11 DUCHARME, RICHARD J SITE VISIT 10/5/11 DUCHARME, RICHARD J SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/3/11 DUNCAN, JOHN S CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2/20/13 

DUNCAN, JOHN S CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 7/22/12 DUNCAN, JOHN S CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/12112 DUNCAN, JOHN S CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5/21/12 DUNCAN, JOHN S SITE VISIT 4124/12 DUNCAN, JOHN S INFORMATION MEETING 3/28/12 DUNCAN, JOHN S SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 3/18112 DUNCAN, JOHN S INFORMATION MEETING 3/15112 DUNCAN, JOHN S INFORMATION MEETING 11/13111 

DUNCAN, JOHN S INFORMATION MEETING 11/9/11 ECK, JAMEST INFORMATION MEETING 12/5112 ECK, JAMES T INFORMATION MEETING 10/14112 

ECK,JAMEST INFORMATION MEETING 4126/12 
Arrival 

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

ECK, JAMEST INFORMATION MEETING 2124/12 ECK, JAMES T INFORMATION MEETING 1/25/12 ECK, JAMEST INFORMATION MEETING 10/18111 ECK, JAMEST INFORMATION MEETING 10/10/11 FAGAN,CAREYJOHNSON INFORMATION MEETING 217113 FAGAN,CAREYJOHNSON CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11/18112 

FAGAN,CAREYJOHNSON CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11/5/12 FAGAN,CAREYJOHNSON CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/5/12 FAGAN,CAREYJOHNSON CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/26112 FAGAN,CAREYJOHNSON CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/23/12 FAGAN,CAREYJOHNSON CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/21/12 FAGAN,CAREYJOHNSON SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/15/12 FAGAN,CAREYJOHNSON SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/13/12 FAGAN,CAREYJOHNSON SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/11/12 FAGAN,CAREYJOHNSON INFORMATION MEETING 512/12 FAGAN,CAREYJOHNSON INFORMATION MEETING 4/26/12 FAGAN,CAREYJOHNSON SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4/10/12 FAGAN,CAREYJOHNSON CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/2/12 

FAGAN,CAREYJOHNSON CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/1112 FAGAN,CAREYJOHNSON INFORMATION MEETING 2/12/12 

FAGAN, CAREY JOHNSON INFORMATION MEETING 1120/12 FAGAN,CAREYJOHNSON CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11/6/11 

FAGAN,CAREYJOHNSON OTHER TRAVEL 10/16/11 FAGAN, CAREY JOHNSON OTHER TRAVEL 10/13111 FAGAN,CAREYJOHNSON OTHER TRAVEL 10/9/11 FAGAN,CAREYJOHNSON OTHER TRAVEL 10/8/11 FAZIO, ANTHONY F CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/18/13 FAZIO, ANTHONY F INFORMATION MEETING 1/20/13 FAZIO, ANTHONY F INFORMATION MEETING 9/16/12 

FAZIO, ANTHONY F INFORMATION MEETING 6/14/12 FAZIO, ANTHONY F INFORMATION MEETING 6/11/12 FAZIO, ANTHONY F INFORMATION MEETING 4125/12 FAZIO, ANTHONY F INFORMATION MEETING 4/17112 FAZIO, ANTHONY F CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3119112 FAZIO, ANTHONY F INFORMATION MEETING 3/11112 

FAZIO, ANTHONY F CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2122/12 

FAZIO, ANTHONY F INFORMATION MEETING 10124111 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 11121/12 

FELDER. WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 11115/12 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code 

FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING llrT112 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 11/2/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 10/31/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 10/29112 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 10/16112 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 10/11112 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 9/25/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 9/19/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 9/15/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 9/13/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 9/9/12 

FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 9/6112 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 8/30/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 8/30/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 8/24/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 8/9112 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 8/3/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 7/31/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 7/26112 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 7119/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 7/13/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 7/11/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 7110112 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 7/5112 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 6/28/12 

FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 6/21/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 6/15/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 6/14/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 6/13/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 6/9112 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 6nl12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 6/1112 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 5/31/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 5/29/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 5/24/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 5/22/12 

FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 5/17/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 5/11/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 5/8112 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code 

FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 5/4112 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 4/30/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 4/27112 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 4/26/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 4/25/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 4/20/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 4/19/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 4/17/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 4/5112 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 4/3/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 4/2/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 3/16112 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 3/14/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 3/13/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 3/12112 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 3/9/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 3/6/12 

FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 3/1/12 

FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 2/23/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 2/22/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 2/19/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 2/13/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 2/9112 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 1126112 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 1120/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 1/19/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 1119112 

FELDER, WILSON N CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1/9/12 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 12/22111 FELDER, WILSON N SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 12/13/11 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 12/1/11 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 11/18/11 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 11/15/11 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 11/10111 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 11/3/11 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 1111111 

FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 10111/11 FELDER, WILSON N INFORMATION MEETING 10/6/11 FELDER, WILSON N CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/3/11 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Tnp Purpose Code Date 

FERNANDEZ-GRECZMIEL, MARIA C SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6125112 FERNANDEZ-GRECZMIEL, MARIA C CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4126/12 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 3/8113 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 317113 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 1130/13 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 1/27113 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 1116113 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN SITE VISIT 1115113 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 1218/12 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 1214112 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 1212112 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 11127112 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 11110112 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 1019112 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 7131112 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6122112 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN SITE VISIT 6119112 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 6118112 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 6110112 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN SITE VISIT 5129/12 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 5117112 

FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 4125112 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4/10/12 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 3/18112 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 315/12 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 311/12 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 2/27112 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 2126/12 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 1120112 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN SITE VISIT 12114/11 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN SITE VISIT 12/13/11 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN SITE VISIT 12112111 

FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN SITE VISIT 12111/11 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN SITE VISIT 12/5111 FERRANTE, ANTHONY STEVEN INFORMATION MEETING 10130111 FIELDS, LAWRENCE MATTHEW INFORMATION MEETING 2/19/13 FIELDS, LAWRENCE MATTHEW INFORMATION MEETING 213113 FIELDS, LAWRENCE MATTHEW INFORMATION MEETING 118113 FIELDS, LAWRENCE MATTHEW INFORMATION MEETING 12/10/12 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

FIELDS, LAWRENCE MATTHEW INFORMATION MEETING 11128112 FIELDS, LAWRENCE MATTHEW INFORMATION MEETING 10115112 FIELDS, LAWRENCE MATTHEW INFORMATION MEETING 8127112 FIELDS, LAWRENCE MATTHEW OTHER TRAVEL 817/12 FIELDS, LAWRENCE MATTHEW INFORMATION MEETING 511112 FIELDS, LAWRENCE MATTHEW INFORMATION MEETING 4124112 FIELDS, LAWRENCE MATTHEW TRAINING ATTENDANCE 3118112 FIELDS, LAWRENCE MATTHEW INFORMATION MEETING 315112 FIELDS, LAWRENCE MATTHEW INFORMATION MEETING 1125112 FIELDS, LAWRENCE MATTHEW INFORMATION MEETING 1117112 FIELDS, LAWRENCE MATTHEW INFORMATION MEETING 118112 FIELDS, LAWRENCE MATTHEW SITE VISIT 12112111 FIELDS, LAWRENCE MATTHEW INFORMATION MEETING 1215111 FIELDS, LAWRENCE MATTHEW INFORMATION MEETING 1112111 FIELDS, LAWRENCE MATTHEW CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10117111 FIERTZ, RANDALL SEAVER INFORMATION MEETING 2125113 FIERTZ, RANDALL SEAVER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 12117112 FIERTZ, RANDALL SEAVER SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1114112 FIERTZ, RANDALL SEAVER INFORMATION MEETING 9126112 FIERTZ, RANDALL SEAVER SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 7131112 FIERTZ, RANDALL SEAVER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 516112 FIERTZ, RANDALL SEAVER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4126112 FIERTZ, RANDALL SEAVER SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4115112 FIERTZ, RANDALL SEAVER SITE VISIT 2122112 FIERTZ, RANDALL SEAVER INFORMATION MEETING 2115112 FIERTZ, RANDALL SEAVER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1123112 FIERTZ, RANDALL SEAVER TRAINING ATTENDANCE 1215111 

FIERTZ, RANDALL SEAVER SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1116111 FIERTZ, RANDALL SEAVER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10114111 FIERTZ, RANDALL SEAVER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1019111 FILLER, DENNIS LEROY INFORMATION MEETING 3125113 FILLER, DENNIS LEROY INFORMATION MEETING 11118112 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 3125113 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE SITE VISIT 3120113 

FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2128113 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2126113 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2126113 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2125113 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 2113113 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code 

FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 2/12/13 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 2/5113 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1/11/13 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 1/8113 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 12/3112 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE TRAINING ATTENDANCE 11126/12 

FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE SITE VISIT 11114/12 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 1115112 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 11/1112 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 10/15112 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 1019/12 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 9/26112 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 9/23/12 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE SITE VISIT 9119/12 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 9112/12 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 8127/12 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 8/24112 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 8/23/12 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 8120/12 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 8113/12 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 8/6112 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 7/12112 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 6124/12 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 6/12112 

FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 6/4/12 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 5/29112 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 5/13/12 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 5/9/12 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 4/29/12 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 4/23112 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 4/20/12 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 4/19/12 

FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 4/17112 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 4/9112 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 412112 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 3/29/12 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 3/24/12 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 3/20/12 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE SITE VISIT 3/15112 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code 

FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE SITE VISIT 3114112 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 317112 

FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 2120112 

FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 2115112 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 2113112 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 217112 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 217112 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 1125112 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 1123112 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 1117112 

FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 12116111 

FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 1117111 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 10127111 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 10124111 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 10122111 FINCHER, RONALD EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 1011111 FLANAGAN, WILLIAM J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6112112 FLANAGAN, WILLIAM J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4125112 FLANAGAN, WILLIAM J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 412112 FLANAGAN, WILLIAM J OTHER TRAVEL 3118112 FLANAGAN, WILLIAM J INFORMATION MEETING 217112 FLANAGAN, WILLIAM J INFORMATION MEETING 12129111 FLANAGAN, WILLIAM J INFORMATION MEETING 12115111 FLANAGAN, WILLIAM J INFORMATION MEETING 1215111 FLANAGAN, WILLIAM J INFORMATION MEETING 10131111 FONTAINE, PAUL V INFORMATION MEETING 3114113 FONTAINE, PAUL V SITE VISIT 1129113 FONTAINE, PAUL V INFORMATION MEETING 11113112 FONTAINE, PAUL V INFORMATION MEETING 9125112 

FONTAINE, PAUL V INFORMATION MEETING 9124112 FONTAINE, PAUL V INFORMATION MEETING 9111112 FONTAINE, PAUL V INFORMATION MEETING 8129112 FONTAINE, PAUL V INFORMATION MEETING 7123112 FONTAINE, PAUL V INFORMATION MEETING 7111112 FONTAINE, PAUL V INFORMATION MEETING 7110112 FONTAINE, PAUL V INFORMATION MEETING 6118112 FONTAINE, PAUL V INFORMATION MEETING 4126112 FONTAINE, PAUL V INFORMATION MEETING 1117111 FONTAINE, PAUL V INFORMATION MEETING 1116111 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

FORNARono, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 3/4113 

FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 2125/13 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 12117/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1213/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11/14/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11113/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11/5/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/29/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/21/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 10/16/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/5/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 10/3/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 10/1/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 8/31/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 8/30/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 8/14/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 8/13/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 8/7/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 7/25112 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 7/20/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 7/6/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 6/28/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 6/27/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 6/27112 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 5/23/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 5/14/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 5r1l12 

FORNAROTTO, CHRISTA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 5/1/12 

FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 4/26/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 4/12/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 4/10/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4/3/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 3/29/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 3/20/12 

FORNAROnO, CHRISTA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 3/13/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 2/29/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 2/22/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 2/15/12 FORNAROnO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 2/2/12 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code AOrrtival 

a e 

FORNAROITO, CHRISTA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/25112 FORNAROITO, CHRISTA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/24112 FORNAROITO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 1214/11 FORNAROITO, CHRISTA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11/27111 FORNAROITO, CHRISTA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11/15111 FORNAROITO, CHRISTA INFORMATION MEETING 11/10111 FORNAROITO, CHRISTA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/31111 

FORNAROITO, CHRISTA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/18111 FORNAROITO, CHRISTA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/17111 FORNAROITO, CHRISTA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/11111 

FOUSHEE, HARVEY CLAYTON CONFERENCEAITENDANCE 4/26112 FRASER, JAMES R TRAINING AITENDANCE 1/27/13 FRASER, JAMES R INFORMATION MEETING 11/26112 FRASER, JAMES R CONFERENCE A ITENDANCE 11/1/12 FRASER, JAMES R INFORMATION MEETING 10/3/12 FRASER, JAMES R OTHER TRAVEL 8/16112 FRASER, JAMES R CONFERENCE AITENDANCE 6/21/12 FRASER, JAMES R TRAINING AITENOANCE 5/11/12 FRASER, JAMES R CONFERENCEAITENDANCE 4/25/12 FRASER, JAMES R SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 3/26/12 FRASER, JAMES R CONFERENCE AITENDANCE 3/8/12 FRASER, JAMES R SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1113/11 

FULLER, DAPHNE A SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11/1/12 

FULLER, DAPHNE A INFORMATION MEETING 1019/12 FULLER, DAPHNE A SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/5112 FULLER, DAPHNE A INFORMATION MEETING 8/6/12 FULLER, DAPHNE A INFORMATION MEETING 7123/12 FULLER, DAPHNE A OTHER TRAVEL 4/25/12 FULLER, DAPHNE A INFORMATION MEETING 4/12/12 FULLER, DAPHNE A INFORMATION MEETING 1/5112 

GAHART, KAREN SUZANNE TRAINING AITENDANCE 6/12112 GAHART, KAREN SUZANNE CONFERENCEAITENDANCE 4/24/12 GALLO, CARMINE W INFORMATION MEETING 3/27113 GALLO, CARMINE W CONFERENCEAITENDANCE 3/18/13 GALLO, CARMINE W INFORMATION MEETING 2/27/13 GALLO, CARMINE W SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 12111112 GALLO, CARMINE W INFORMATION MEETING 11/14112 GALLO, CARMINE W INFORMATION MEETING 10/16112 GALLO, CARMINE W CONFERENCEAITENDANCE 9/19112 
, Arriva

Traveler Name Tnp Purpose Code Date 

GALLO, CARMINE W CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9110112 GALLO, CARMINE W INFORMATION MEETING 8130112 GALLO, CARMINE W INFORMATION MEETING 8129112 GALLO, CARMINE W CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 8116112 GALLO, CARMINE W CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 8115112 GALLO, CARMINE W CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 8113112 

GALLO, CARMINE W INFORMATION MEETING 7126112 GALLO, CARMINE W INFORMATION MEETING 7118112 GALLO, CARMINE W TRAINING ATTENDANCE 6128112 GALLO, CARMINE W INFORMATION MEETING 6118112 GALLO, CARMINE W CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5116112 GALLO, CARMINE W CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 513112 GALLO, CARMINE W INFORMATION MEETING 4126112 GALLO, CARMINE W INFORMATION MEETING 4110112 GALLO, CARMINE W CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 412112 GALLO, CARMINE W INFORMATION MEETING 3128112 GALLO, CARMINE W INFORMATION MEETING 3126112 GALLO, CARMINE W INFORMATION MEETING 3122112 GALLO, CARMINE W INFORMATION MEETING 3119112 GALLO, CARMINE W INFORMATION MEETING 311V12 GALLO, CARMINE W CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 315112 GALLO, CARMINE W INFORMATION MEETING 2113112 GALLO, CARMINE W INFORMATION MEETING 1127112 GALLO, CARMINE W INFORMATION MEETING 12114111 

GALLO, CARMINE W INFORMATION MEETING 11130111 GALLO, CARMINE W INFORMATION MEETING 11121111 GALLO, CARMINE W INFORMATION MEETING 10131111 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 3119113 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 315113 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 1122113 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 118113 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 12111112 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 11129/12 

GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 11126/12 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 11112112 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 10121112 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 10/14112 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 1019112 GARDINER, MARIE T OTHER TRAVEL 9123112 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Arrival 

GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 9/18/12 GARDINER, MARIE T SITE VISIT 9/7/12 GARDINER, MARIE T OTHER TRAVEL 9/5/12 GARDINER, MARIE T OTHER TRAVEL 8/20/12 GARDINER, MARIE T OTHER TRAVEL 8115112 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 811112 GARDINER, MARIE T OTHER TRAVEL 7122112 GARDINER, MARIE T OTHER TRAVEL 7119112 

GARDINER, MARIE T OTHER TRAVEL 7118112 GARDINER, MARIE T OTHER TRAVEL 7116112 

GARDINER, MARIE T OTHER TRAVEL 7/8112 

GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 711112 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 6/28112 GARDINER, MARIE T SITE VISIT 6124112 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 6/17112 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 4/24/12 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 3/28/12 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 3/22/12 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 317112 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 2/15/12 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 1/30/12 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 1/25/12 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 113/12 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 10/31/11 GARDINER, MARIE T INFORMATION MEETING 10/24/11 GARDNER, JAMES E OTHER TRAVEL 2125/13 GARDNER, JAMES E INFORMATION MEETING 213/13 GARDNER, JAMES E INFORMATION MEETING 1/28/13 GARDNER, JAMES E INFORMATION MEETING 1/6/13 

GARDNER, JAMES E INFORMATION MEETING 12/17112 GARDNER, JAMES E INFORMATION MEETING 12110/12 GARDNER, JAMES E SITE VISIT 10115112 GARDNER, JAMES E INFORMATION MEETING 9124112 GARDNER, JAMES E SITE VISIT 8/27/12 GARDNER, JAMES E SITE VISIT 7126/12 GARDNER, JAMES E SITE VISIT 7118112 GARDNER, JAMES E SITE VISIT 7117/12 GARDNER, JAMES E SITE VISIT 7116112 GARDNER, JAMES E SITE VISIT 4/24112 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code AD"tiVal 

a e 

GARDNER, JAMES E INFORMATION MEETING 3/5112 GARDNER, JAMES E SITE VISIT 2/21/12 

GARDNER, JAMES E SITE VISIT 1/8112 GARDNER, JAMES E SITE VISIT 1214/11 GARDNER, JAMES E SITE VISIT 1211111 GARDNER, JAMES E SITE VISIT 11/30/11 GARDNER, JAMES E SITE VISIT 11/29/11 

GARDNER, JAMES E SITE VISIT 11128/11 

GARDNER, JAMES E SITE VISIT 11/8/11 

GARDNER, JAMES E SITE VISIT 11/1/11 

GARDNER, JAMES E SITE VISIT 10/13111 

GARDNER, JAMES E SITE VISIT 10/11111 GARDNER, JAMES E SITE VISIT 10/3/11 GARRAMBONE, PATRICIA LAURA INFORMATION MEETING 1/30/13 GAR RAM BONE, PATRICIA LAURA INFORMATION MEETING 7/22/12 GARRAMBONE, PATRICIA LAURA INFORMATION MEETING 5/9/12 GARRAMBONE, PATRICIA LAURA OTHER TRAVEL 5/1112 GARRAMBONE, PATRICIA LAURA INFORMATION MEETING 4/26/12 GARRAMBONE, PATRICIA LAURA INFORMATION MEETING 4/2/12 GIERING, JEANNE P SITE VISIT 6/20112 GIERING, JEANNE P SITE VISIT 6/19/12 GIERING, JEANNE P SITE VISIT 6/18112 GIERING, JEANNE P CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4126/12 

GIERING, JEANNE P CERTIFICATE MANAGEMENT 11/7/11 GILLIGAN, MARGARET M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 12/11/12 GILLIGAN, MARGARET M INFORMATION MEETING 11/27112 

GILLIGAN, MARGARET M CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/29/12 

GIlliGAN, MARGARET M CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/17112 

GILLIGAN, MARGARET M CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 7/25112 GILLIGAN, MARGARET M SITE VISIT 6/25/12 GILLIGAN, MARGARET M CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/11/12 GILLIGAN, MARGARET M INFORMATION MEETING 4125112 GILLIGAN, MARGARET M CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/25112 GILLIGAN, MARGARET M INFORMATION MEETING 3/13112 GILLIGAN, MARGARET M CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2/11/12 GILLIGAN, MARGARET M SITE VISIT 1/10112 GILLIGAN, MARGARET M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/10/11 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R SITE VISIT 12/16/12 

GIMPEL, MARSHAL R INFORMATION MEETING 11/26/12 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

GIMPEL, MARSHAL R INFORMATION MEETING 11/13/12 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R INFORMATION MEETING 10/15/12 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R INFORMATION MEETING 10/3/12 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R INFORMATION MEETING 9/19/12 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R INFORMATION MEETING 9/12/12 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 7/28/12 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R SITE VISIT 7/16/12 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R INFORMATION MEETING 6/27/12 

GIMPEL, MARSHAL R SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/18/12 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R SITE VISIT 6/11112 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R SITE VISIT 5/14/12 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 5/6/12 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R INFORMATION MEETING 4/24/12 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R INFORMATION MEETING 4/16/12 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R INFORMATION MEETING 3/26/12 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R SITE VISIT 3111/12 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R INFORMATION MEETING 2/21112 

GIMPEL, MARSHAL R SITE VISIT 2114/12 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R INFORMATION MEETING 2/6/12 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R INFORMATION MEETING 1/29/12 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R INFORMATION MEETING 1/23/12 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R SITE VISIT 1/16/12 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R SITE VISIT 1/9/12 

GIMPEL, MARSHAL R SITE VISIT 11/14/11 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R INFORMATION MEETING 10/23/11 GIMPEL, MARSHAL R SITE VISIT 10/16/11 GLASOW, CHRISTOPHER J OTHER TRAVEL 10/23/12 GLASOW, CHRISTOPHER J OTHER TRAVEL 9/18/12 GLASOW, CHRISTOPHER J INFORMATION MEETING 7/30/12 

GLASOW, CHRISTOPHER J OTHER TRAVEL 6/11/12 GLASOW, CHRISTOPHER J OTHER TRAVEL 4/15/12 GLASOW, CHRISTOPHER J OTHER TRAVEL 3/6112 GLASOW, CHRISTOPHER J OTHER TRAVEL 3/5112 GLASOW, CHRISTOPHER J OTHER TRAVEL 10/17/11 GOLIA, MARY C INFORMATION MEETING 6/19112 GOLIA, MARY C SITE VISIT 5/14/12 GOLIA, MARY C INFORMATION MEETING 5/7/12 GOLIA, MARY C INFORMATION MEETING 4/30/12 GOLIA, MARY C INFORMATION MEETING 4/26112 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code : ADrrtival 

: a e 

GOLIA, MARY C SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 3/26/12 GOLIA, MARY C CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/19/12 GOLIA, MARY C INFORMATION MEETING 2/29/12 GOLIA, MARY C INFORMATION MEETING 2/21/12 GOLIA, MARY C INFORMATION MEETING 11/28111 GOLIA, MARY C INFORMATION MEETING 11/15/11 GOLIA, MARY C INFORMATION MEETING 10/18/11 

GOLIA, MARY C INFORMATION MEETING 10/3/11 

GOUGH, ROBERT M INFORMATION MEETING 10/15/12 

GOUGH, ROBERT M INFORMATION MEETING 6/4/12 GOUGH, ROBERT M INFORMATION MEETING 4/26112 GOUGH, ROBERT M SITE VISIT 1117111 GRIFFIN, WENDELL L INFORMATION MEETING 4/25/12 GRIPPER, WILLIE JAMES OTHER TRAVEL 10/22112 GRIPPER, WILLIE JAMES SITE VISIT 9127112 GRIPPER, WILLIE JAMES SITE VISIT 9/25112 GRIPPER, WILLIE JAMES SITE VISIT 9111112 GRIPPER, WILLIE JAMES SITE VISIT 8/6112 GRIPPER, WILLIE JAMES INFORMATION MEETING 7/30112 GRIPPER, WILLIE JAMES CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 511112 GRIPPER, WILLIE JAMES OTHER TRAVEL 4125112 GRIPPER, WILLIE JAMES CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/5112 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/5113 

GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID INFORMATION MEETING 216113 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID INFORMATION MEETING 215113 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID OTHER TRAVEL 1/30113 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID OTHER TRAVEL 1/9113 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID SITE VISIT 1215112 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID SITE VISIT 1117112 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID OTHER TRAVEL 10/3/12 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID INFORMATION MEETING 9/13112 

GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID INFORMATION MEETING 9/12112 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID OTHER TRAVEL 9/5112 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 7/31112 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 7/30112 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID INFORMATION MEETING 6125112 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID SITE VISIT 6113/12 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID SITE VISIT 617112 

GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID INFORMATION MEETING 5/22112 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code 

GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID INFORMATION MEETING 4/26112 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID SITE VISIT 3/28112 

GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID SITE VISIT 3/14112 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID INFORMATION MEETING 2/17/12 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID INFORMATION MEETING 212112 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID INFORMATION MEETING 2/1112 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID INFORMATION MEETING 12126/11 

GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID INFORMATION MEETING 12/22/11 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID SITE VISIT 12118/11 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID SITE VISIT 12115/11 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID SITE VISIT 1217111 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11/14111 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/18111 GRIZZLE, J DAVID DAVID CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10116/11 

HALL, RODERICK DEWAYNE CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/22112 

HALL, RODERICK DEWAYNE INFORMATION MEETING 10/5112 HALL, RODERICK DEWAYNE INFORMATION MEETING 8/22112 HALL, RODERICK DEWAYNE INFORMATION MEETING 7/23/12 HALL, RODERICK DEWAYNE SITE VISIT 6/13/12 HALL, RODERICK DEWAYNE INFORMATION MEETING 4/25112 HALL, RODERICK DEWAYNE INFORMATION MEETING 4/9/12 HALL, RODERICK DEWAYNE SITE VISIT 3/29112 HALL, RODERICK DEWAYNE INFORMATION MEETING 2/21/12 

HALL, RODERICK DEWAYNE OTHER TRAVEL 10/20111 HALL, RODERICK DEWAYNE OTHER TRAVEL 10/19/11 

HALL, RODERICK DEWAYNE OTHER TRAVEL 10/17111 HAMIL TON-POWELL, PAMELA A INFORMATION MEETING 4/25112 HANDY, SUSAN MARIE TRAINING ATTENDANCE 3/3/13 HANDY, SUSAN MARIE SITE VISIT 2110/13 HANDY, SUSAN MARIE TRAINING ATTENDANCE 11/25/12 HANDY, SUSAN MARIE SITE VISIT 8/7/12 

HANDY, SUSAN MARIE SITE VISIT 8/6112 HANDY, SUSAN MARIE TRAINING ATTENDANCE 6/12/12 HANDY, SUSAN MARIE SITE VISIT 5121112 HANDY, SUSAN MARIE SITE VISIT 5/20/12 

HANDY, SUSAN MARIE SITE VISIT 5/8112 HANDY, SUSAN MARIE SITE VISIT 5/6112 HANDY, SUSAN MARIE CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4124/12 HANDY, SUSAN MARIE SITE VISIT 3/25/12 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code 

HATFIELD, FRANKLIN D OTHER TRAVEL 8/26/12 HATFIELD, FRANKLIN D INFORMATION MEETING 3/20/12 HATFIELD, FRANKLIN D INFORMATION MEETING 3/16/12 HATFIELD, FRANKLIN D INFORMATION MEETING 3/15/12 HATFIELD, FRANKLIN D INFORMATION MEETING 3/14/12 HATFIELD, FRANKLIN D INFORMATION MEETING 3/12112 HEMDAL, HEATHER ELAINE INFORMATION MEETING 3/10113 HEMDAL, HEATHER ELAINE CONFERENCE A TIENDANCE 11/4/12 HEMDAL, HEATHER ELAINE INFORMATION MEETING 10/27/12 HEMDAL, HEATHER ELAINE CONFERENCEATIENDANCE 9/8112 HEMDAL, HEATHER ELAINE CONFERENCE ATIENDANCE 8/8/12 HEMDAL, HEATHER ELAINE INFORMATION MEETING 7/25112 

HEMDAL, HEATHER ELAINE INFORMATION MEETING 7/9/12 

HEMDAL, HEATHER ELAINE CONFERENCE ATIENDANCE 7/1/12 

HEMDAL, HEATHER ELAINE CONFERENCEATIENDANCE 6/11/12 HEMDAL, HEATHER ELAINE OTHER TRAVEL 5/6/12 HEMDAL, HEATHER ELAINE CONFERENCE A TIENDANCE 4/30/12 HEMDAL, HEATHER ELAINE CONFERENCE A TIENDANCE 4/26/12 HEMDAL, HEATHER ELAINE CONFERENCE A TIENDANCE 3/27112 HEMDAL, HEATHER ELAINE CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2115/12 HEMDAL, HEATHER ELAINE CONFERENCE A TIENDANCE 216/12 HEMDAL, HEATHER ELAINE CONFERENCE A TIENDANCE 1/26/12 HEMDAL, HEATHER ELAINE CONFERENCEATIENDANCE 1/24/12 HEMDAL, HEATHER ELAINE SITE VISIT 1/6/12 HEMDAL, HEATHER ELAINE CONFERENCE ATIENDANCE 11/27111 HEMDAL, HEATHER ELAINE CONFERENCE ATIENDANCE 11/16/11 HEMDAL, HEATHER ELAINE TRAINING A TIENDANCE 11/7/11 HEMPE, DAVID WILLIAM INFORMATION MEETING 215/13 HEMPE, DAVID WILLIAM INFORMATION MEETING 12/27/12 HEMPE, DAVID WILLIAM INFORMATION MEETING 12/2/12 HEMPE, DAVID WILLIAM INFORMATION MEETING 10/24/12 HEMPE, DAVID WILLIAM INFORMATION MEETING 10/21/12 HEMPE, DAVID WILLIAM CONFERENCE A TIENDANCE 10/2/12 HEMPE, DAVID WILLIAM INFORMATION MEETING 9/24/12 HEMPE, DAVID WILliAM OTHER TRAVEL 9/6/12 HEMPE, DAVID WILLIAM CONFERENCE ATIENDANCE 6/11/12 

HEMPE, DAVID WILLIAM INFORMATION MEETING 5/14/12 HEMPE, DAVID WILLIAM CONFERENCE ATIENDANCE 4/24/12 HEMPE, DAVID WILLIAM INFORMATION MEETING 4/12112 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code AOrrtival 

a e 

HEMPE, OAVID WILLIAM CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3126112 HEMPE, DAVID WILLIAM OTHER TRAVEL 1127112 HEMPE, DAVID WILLIAM OTHER TRAVEL 1122112 HEMPE, DAVID WILLIAM INFORMATION MEETING 1115111 HEMPE, DAVID WILLIAM CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10124111 

HEMPE, DAVID WILLIAM SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10116111 HEMPE, DAVID WILLIAM CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10111111 HENNIGAN, JOHN F INFORMATION MEETING 4126112 HERRON, BRUCE MAURICE INFORMATION MEETING 7130112 HERRON, BRUCE MAURICE CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4124112 HICKEY, JOHN J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 216113 HICKEY, JOHN J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1213112 HICKEY, JOHN J INFORMATION MEETING 11127112 HICKEY, JOHN J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10115112 HICKEY, JOHN J INFORMATION MEETING 9120112 HICKEY, JOHN J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 8114112 HICKEY, JOHN J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 7122112 HICKEY, JOHN J INFORMATION MEETING 5/21112 HICKEY, JOHN J INFORMATION MEETING 5/8/12 HICKEY, JOHN J INFORMATION MEETING 4/24112 HICKEY, JOHN J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/23/12 HICKEY, JOHN J INFORMATION MEETING 212112 HICKEY, JOHN J INFORMATION MEETING 1123112 

. HICKEY, JOHN J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10113111 

HICKEY, JOHN J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1019111 HICKEY, JOHN J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1018111 HILL, JACQUELINE A INFORMATION MEETING 215113 

Hill, JACQUELINE A INFORMATION MEETING 1131113 

HILL, JACQUELINE A INFORMATION MEETING 811112 HILL, JACQUELINE A SITE VISIT 7119112 HILL, JACQUELINE A SITE VISIT 7118112 HILL, JACQUELINE A SITE VISIT 7116112 HILL, JACQUELINE A SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1119112 HOLSCLAW, CURTIS A CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 717112 HOLSCLAW, CURTIS A TRAINING ATTENDANCE 6112112 HOLSCLAW, CURTIS A INFORMATION MEETING 516112 HOLSCLAW, CURTIS A INFORMATION MEETING 4126112 HOLSCLAW, CURTIS A INFORMATION MEETING 2112/12 HOLSCLAW, CURTIS A INFORMATION MEETING 1123112 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Tnp Purpose Code Date 

HOLSCLAW, CURTIS A INFORMATION MEETING 11/6/11 HOLSCLAW, CURTIS A INFORMATION MEETING 10/25/11 HOUSE, MARK STEPHEN SITE VISIT 12/3/12 HOUSE, MARK STEPHEN CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/24/12 HOUSE, MARK STEPHEN SITE VISIT 12/5/11 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER INFORMATION MEETING 2/6113 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER INFORMATION MEETING 1/30/13 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER SITE VISIT 1/11/13 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER SITE VISIT 1/11113 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER SITE VISIT 12111/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 12/3/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER INFORMATION MEETING 11/30/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER INFORMATION MEETING 11/30/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11/20112 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11118/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER INFORMATION MEETING 10/26112 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/22112 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER INFORMATION MEETING 10/11/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER INFORMATION MEETING 10/10112 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/5/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER INFORMATION MEETING 10/3/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 9/28/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 9/20/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 8/31/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 8/29/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 8/6112 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER SITE VISIT 7/25/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER INFORMATION MEETING 7/23/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER SITE VISIT 718/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6126/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/11/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/11/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5/23/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5/22/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5/22112 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 5/11/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER INFORMATION MEETING 5/9112 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/26/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/16/12 
· Arrival 

Traveler Name Tnp Purpose Code 

HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4113/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER INFORMATION MEETING 4/12/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/9/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER OTHER TRAVEL 4/4/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/29/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/26112 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER OTHER TRAVEL 3/19/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER OTHER TRAVEL 3/13/12 

HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/10/12 

HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/8112 

HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER OTHER TRAVEL 2/29112 

HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER OTHER TRAVEL 2/20/12 

HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER INFORMATION MEETING 2/2112 

HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER INFORMATION MEETING 2/1112 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER SITE VISIT 1/9/12 

HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER SITE VISIT 1/9/12 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER SITE VISIT 10128111 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER SITE VISIT 10/27/11 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/21/11 HUERTA, MICHAEL PETER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/12111 

JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 3/22/13 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 3/11113 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 2/19113 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 217113 

JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 213/13 

JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 1122113 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 12111112 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 1212112 

JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 11129/12 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 11/13/12 

JAMES. CORDON L SITE VISIT 1115112 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 10129112 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 10122/12 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 10115/12 

JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 10/9112 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 9124112 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 915112 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 9/4/12 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 8129112 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 8/17/12 

JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 8/6/12 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 8/1/12 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 8/1/12 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 7/24/12 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 7/16112 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 7/9/12 JAMES, CORDON L OTHER TRAVEL 7/1112 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 6/28/12 

JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 6/27/12 

JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 6/20/12 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 6/18112 

JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 6/14/12 

JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 617112 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 6/4/12 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 5/30/12 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 5/21/12 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 5/15/12 JAMES, CORDON L CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 517112 JAMES, CORDON L SITE VISIT 4/29/12 JAMES, CORDON L SITE VISIT 4/19/12 JAMES, CORDON L SITE VISIT 4/17/12 JAMES, CORDON L SITE VISIT 4/16/12 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 4/15/12 JAMES, CORDON l INFORMATION MEETING 4/12/12 

JAMES, CORDON l INFORMATION MEETING 4/8/12 JAMES, CORDON l INFORMATION MEETING 3/22/12 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 3/19/12 JAMES, CORDON l INFORMATION MEETING 3/13/12 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 3/12/12 JAMES, CORDON l INFORMATION MEETING 3/9112 JAMES, CORDON l INFORMATION MEETING 3/5/12 JAMES, CORDON l INFORMATION MEETING 2/28/12 

JAMES, CORDON l INFORMATION MEETING 2/26/12 

JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 219/12 

JAMES, CORDON l INFORMATION MEETING 2/5112 JAMES, CORDON L CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1/27/12 JAMES, CORDON L CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1/23/12 JAMES, CORDON L SITE VISIT 1/17/12 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Tnp Purpose Code Date 

JAMES, CORDON L OTHER TRAVEL 119/12 JAMES, CORDON L CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1/3/12 JAMES, CORDON L OTHER TRAVEL 12/23/11 JAMES, CORDON L OTHER TRAVEL 12/21/11 

JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 12/12/11 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 12/9/11 

JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 12/5/11 JAMES, CORDON L CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11/29/11 JAMES, CORDON L OTHER TRAVEL 11/19/11 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 11/13/11 JAMES, CORDON L INFORMATION MEETING 1118/11 JAMES, CORDON L OTHER TRAVEL 11/1/11 JAMES, CORDON L SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/31/11 JAMES, CORDON L SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/28/11 JAMES, CORDON L OTHER TRAVEL 10/21/11 JAMES, CORDON L OTHER TRAVEL 10/18/11 JAMES, CORDON L OTHER TRAVEL 10/16/11 JAMES, CORDON L SITE VISIT 10/4111 JAMES, RONALD STEVEN SITE VISIT 2/5113 JAMES, RONALD STEVEN SITE VISIT 11/14/12 JOHNS, JAMES CLAIR INFORMATION MEETING 11/13112 

JOHNS, JAMES CLAIR INFORMATION MEETING 9/5/12 

JOHNS, JAMES CLAIR INFORMATION MEETING 7/23/12 

JOHNS, JAMES CLAIR INFORMATION MEETING 6/18/12 JOHNS, JAMES CLAIR CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4126112 JOHNS, JAMES CLAIR INFORMATION MEETING 3/6/12 JOHNSON, ALEKSANDRA J CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/21/11 JOHNSON,ALEKSANDRAJ INFORMATION MEETING 10/19/11 JOHNSON,ALEKSANDRAJ INFORMATION MEETING 10/17/11 JOHNSON, DEBORAH A CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/26/12 JOHNSON, PEARLIS E TRAINING ATTENDANCE 3/11/13 JOHNSON, PEARLIS E INFORMATION MEETING 11/5/12 JOHNSON, PEARLIS E INFORMATION MEETING 10/15/12 

JOHNSON, PEARLIS E INFORMATION MEETING 10/10/12 JOHNSON, PEARLIS E INFORMATION MEETING 10/2/12 JOHNSON, PEARLIS E INFORMATION MEETING 9/26/12 JOHNSON, PEARLIS E INFORMATION MEETING 9/9/12 JOHNSON, PEARLIS E OTHER TRAVEL 8/20/12 JOHNSON, PEAR LIS E OTHER TRAVEL 8/13/12 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

JOHNSON, PEARLIS E INFORMATION MEETING 8/5/12 

JOHNSON, PEARLIS E OTHER TRAVEL 7/16/12 

JOHNSON, PEARLIS E INFORMATION MEETING 7/10/12 JOHNSON, PEARLIS E INFORMATION MEETING 6/28/12 

JOHNSON, PEARLIS E INFORMATION MEETING 6/20/12 

JOHNSON, PEARLIS E OTHER TRAVEL 6/3/12 JOHNSON, PEARLIS E OTHER TRAVEL 519/12 JOHNSON, PEARLIS E INFORMATION MEETING 5/2/12 JOHNSON, PEARLIS E INFORMATION MEETING 5/1/12 

JOHNSON, PEARLIS E INFORMATION MEETING 4/23/12 JOHNSON, PEARLIS E TRAINING ATTENDANCE 3/26112 JOHNSON, PEARLIS E OTHER TRAVEL 1/29/12 

JOHNSON, PEARLIS E OTHER TRAVEL 12/31/11 JOHNSON, PEARLIS E INFORMATION MEETING 1218/11 JOHNSON, PEARLIS E INFORMATION MEETING 10/24/11 

JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 3/18/13 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 3/4113 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 2/25113 

JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 2/11/13 

JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 2/4113 

JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 1129/13 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 1/28/13 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 12/11/12 

JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 12/9112 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 12/3/12 

JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 11/27112 

JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 11/14/12 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 11/13/12 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 11/6/12 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 10/24/12 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 10/22/12 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 9/23112 JOSLIN, ROBERT E TRAINING ATTENDANCE 8/27/12 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 8/5/12 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 8/1112 JOSLIN, ROBERT E TRAINING ATTENDANCE 7/16112 

JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 7/10/12 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 6/26/12 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 617112 
· Arrival 

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 6/6/12 

JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 5129112 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 5120/12 

JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 5114/12 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 517/12 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 3127/12 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 3/23/12 JOSLIN, ROBERT E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 3122/12 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 1/31/12 JOSLIN, ROBERT E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1/23112 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 1/17112 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 12119111 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 12112111 

JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 12/5/11 

JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 11/29/11 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 11/8111 JOSLIN, ROBERT E OTHER TRAVEL 10/27111 JOSLIN, ROBERT E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/12/11 

KALINOWSKI, NANCY BLAGG INFORMATION MEETING 3/14113 KALINOWSKI, NANCY BLAGG INFORMATION MEETING 2/6/13 KALINOWSKI, NANCY BLAGG CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6126112 KALINOWSKI, NANCY BLAGG INFORMATION MEETING 6/3112 KALINOWSKI, NANCY BLAGG INFORMATION MEETING 517112 KALINOWSKI, NANCY BLAGG CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/30/12 KALINOWSKI, NANCY BLAGG INFORMATION MEETING 4/25/12 KALINOWSKI, NANCY BLAGG SITE VISIT 3/14/12 KALINOWSKI, NANCY BLAGG INFORMATION MEETING 2/23/12 KING, MELISSA SITE VISIT 214/13 KING, MELISSA SITE VISIT 12/17/12 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 3/25113 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 2/26113 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 2/4/13 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 12110/12 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 12/3/12 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 1117112 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 10129/12 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 10123/12 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 10/22/12 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 10115/12 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 10/15/12 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 10/12112 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 9/17/12 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 8/27/12 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 8/13/12 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 8/6/12 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 7125/12 

KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 7/16/12 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 6126/12 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 6/25/12 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 6/4112 KORT, NANCY B SITE VISIT 5/22/12 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 4/30/12 

KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 4125112 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 4123112 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 4113/12 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 4/11112 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 4/10112 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 4/9/12 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 4/4/12 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 3/21/12 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 2/27112 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 2115112 

KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 216112 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 1/23/12 KORT, NANCY B ENTITLEMENT TRAVEL 1117112 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 1111/12 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 1/9112 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 12112111 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 1216/11 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 11129111 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 11114/11 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 10131/11 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 10124/11 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 10123/11 KORT, NANCY B INFORMATION MEETING 1013111 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 313/13 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 215/13 

LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 115/13 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/3/13 LANG, CATHERINE M INFORMATION MEETING 12/17/12 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 12/6/12 

LANG, CATHERINE M INFORMATION MEETING 11/27/12 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10129112 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/13/12 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/11/12 

LANG, CATHERINE M OTHER TRAVEL 10/9112 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 9/12112 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 9/11/12 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 8/27/12 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 8/26/12 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 8/17/12 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 7/20/12 LANG, CATHERINE M INFORMATION MEETING 7/12/12 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/26/12 

LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/19/12 

LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/10/12 LANG, CATHERINE M INFORMATION MEETING 4/26/12 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4/23/12 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4122112 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4/16/12 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4/13/12 

LANG, CATHERINE M INFORMATION MEETING 3/29/12 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 3/7/12 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 2128/12 

LANG, CATHERINE M INFORMATION MEETING 2/15/12 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 2/6112 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1115/12 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/13/12 

LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1112112 

LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 118112 

LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 12/22/11 LANG, CATHERINE M INFORMATION MEETING 12/4111 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11nt11 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/30/11 LANG, CATHERINE M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/8/11 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 2/28113 

LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 2/19/13 
· Arrival 

Traveler Name Tnp Purpose Code Date 

LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 214113 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 1114113 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 119113 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 118113 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 12121112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 1213112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 11119112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 11114112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 11111112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10122112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 10115112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10111112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 1012112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 9119112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 7122112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 6118112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6111112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 6n112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 615112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 614112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 5130112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 5110112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 4124112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 4120112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 4119112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 4118112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 4116112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 4110112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 416112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 414112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 412112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3127112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY TRAINING ATTENDANCE 314112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 2129112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2124112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2/21/12 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 2/9/12 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 216/12 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1123/12 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Tnp Purpose Code Date 

LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 119112 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 12/12/11 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY TRAINING ATTENDANCE 11/27/11 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY SITE VISIT 11/17/11 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 11/14/11 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY TRAINING ATTENDANCE 1117111 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11/1/11 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY INFORMATION MEETING 10/24/11 LAWRENCE, EARL ANTHONY CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/8/11 LEADER, CHARLES ARTHUR CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/25/12 LEE-FANNING, SUNNY OTHER TRAVEL 10128112 LEE-FANNING, SUNNY OTHER TRAVEL 10122112 LEE-FANNING, SUNNY INFORMATION MEETING 10/9/12 LEE-FANNING, SUNNY INFORMATION MEETING 9/19112 LEE-FANNING, SUNNY INFORMATION MEETING 914112 LEE-FANNING, SUNNY INFORMATION MEETING 8/9112 

LEE-FANNING, SUNNY INFORMATION MEETING 7/31/12 LEE-FANNING, SUNNY INFORMATION MEETING 7/16112 LEE-FANNING, SUNNY SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/26112 LEE-FANNING, SUNNY OTHER TRAVEL 6/12112 LEE-FANNING, SUNNY INFORMATION MEETING 517112 LEE-FANNING, SUNNY INFORMATION MEETING 4124112 LEE-FANNING, SUNNY INFORMATION MEETING 4/15112 LEE-FANNING, SUNNY INFORMATION MEETING 3115112 LEE-FANNING, SUNNY INFORMATION MEETING 315112 

LEE-FANNING, SUNNY TRAINING ATTENDANCE 215112 LEE-FANNING, SUNNY INFORMATION MEETING 211/12 LEE-FANNING, SUNNY INFORMATION MEETING 12114/11 LEE-FANNING, SUNNY OTHER TRAVEL 1117111 LEE-FANNING, SUNNY TRAINING ATTENDANCE 1112111 LEE-FANNING, SUNNY INFORMATION MEETING 10126111 LEE-FANNING, SUNNY TRAINING ATTENDANCE 10112111 LEE-FANNING, SUNNY INFORMATION MEETING 10/3111 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 12117/12 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 11/12/12 LENFERT, WINSOME A OTHER TRAVEL 11/4/12 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 10/15/12 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 9/26/12 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 9/11/12 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

LENFERT, WINSOME A SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 9/10/12 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 8/22112 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 8120112 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 818/12 LENFERT, WINSOME A SITE VISIT 7120/12 LENFERT, WINSOME A SITE VISIT 7110112 LENFERT, WINSOME A TRAINING ATTENDANCE 6117112 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 6/11112 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 617112 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 5/23/12 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 5/14/12 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 512112 LENFERT, WINSOME A CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/24/12 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 4111112 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 4110/12 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 4110/12 LENFERT, WINSOME A TRAINING ATTENDANCE 3125112 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 2129112 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 2/22112 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 2/18112 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 2/8112 LENFERT, WINSOME A SITE VISIT 1/22/12 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 1/17112 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 1113/12 LENFERT, WINSOME A SITE VISIT 1/9112 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 1/3/12 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 12/22111 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 12/5/11 LENFERT, WINSOME A SITE VISIT 11/15111 LENFERT, WINSOME A SITE VISIT 11/14/11 LENFERT, WINSOME A INFORMATION MEETING 11/1/11 LENFERT, WINSOME A TRAINING ATTENDANCE 10117/11 LEWIS, PATRICK L INFORMATION MEETING 2122/12 

LEWIS, PAULA R INFORMATION MEETING 12/5/11 

LEWIS, PAULA R CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11/9/11 LEWIS, PAULA R INFORMATION MEETING 10/25/11 

LEWIS, ROBERT N INFORMATION MEETING 2/24/13 LEWIS, ROBERT N INFORMATION MEETING 1/23/13 LEWIS, ROBERT N INFORMATION MEETING 11/26/12 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Arrival 

LEWIS, ROBERT N OTHER TRAVEL 11113/12 LEWIS, ROBERT N CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/14/12 LEWIS, ROBERT N INFORMATION MEETING 10/9/12 LEWIS, ROBERT N CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/8/12 LEWIS, ROBERT N OTHER TRAVEL 8/12112 LEWIS, ROBERT N CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 7/24/12 LEWIS, ROBERT N SITE VISIT 6/27112 LEWIS, ROBERT N CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5/29/12 LEWIS, ROBERT N OTHER TRAVEL 5/9/12 LEWIS, ROBERT N CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/27112 LEWIS, ROBERT N CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/24/12 LEWIS, ROBERT N CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4123112 LEWIS, ROBERT N SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4119/12 LEWIS, ROBERT N INFORMATION MEETING 418112 LEWIS, ROBERT N CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/26112 LEWIS, ROBERT N INFORMATION MEETING 3120/12 LEWIS, ROBERT N INFORMATION MEETING 3120/12 LEWIS, ROBERT N INFORMATION MEETING 1216111 LEWIS, ROBERT N INFORMATION MEETING 10123111 LEWIS, ROBERT N SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10113111 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3125113 

LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3118113 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3111113 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 313113 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2124113 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2119113 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2111113 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 214113 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1131113 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1/29113 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1123113 

LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1114113 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 117113 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 12121/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 12120112 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 12117112 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL SITE VISIT 12110/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1213112 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11/26112 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL OTHER TRAVEL 11118112 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11115/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11/13112 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11/12/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11/5112 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/23112 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/16/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/9/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9125112 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/24/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/18/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/16/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/11/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/4/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 8/28/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 8/20/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 8/6/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 7123/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 7116/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 7/10/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 7/9/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/25/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/22/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/19/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/18/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 614/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5/30/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5/24/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5/21/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 5/3112 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL SITE VISIT 5/1/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4126/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/24/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/23/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL SITE VISIT 4/18/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/10/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/2/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 3/26/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/20112 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 3/16/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 3/6112 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 3/1112 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 2/29/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 2/27112 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 2/24/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 2/21/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL CONFERENCE A nENDANCE 2/14/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 2/8112 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 2/6/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 2/1/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 1/23/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 1/23/12 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 1/17112 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 1/2112 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 12/19/11 

LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 12/14/11 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 12/13/11 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 12/12/11 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 12/5111 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 11128111 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 11/28/11 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 11116/11 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 11/9/11 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 1117111 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 11/1/11 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 10/24/11 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 10120/11 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 10/18/11 LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 10/5111 

LINNEY, JAMES DANIEL INFORMATION MEETING 10/3/11 LlU, LlRIO L OTHER TRAVEL 10/5/12 LlU, LlRIO L OTHER TRAVEL 10/1112 LlU, LlRIO L OTHER TRAVEL 9/20112 LlU, LlRIO L OTHER TRAVEL 9/1/12 LlU, LlRIO L OTHER TRAVEL 8116/12 LlU, LlRIO L CONFERENCE AnENDANCE 6/11/12 LlU, LlRIO L OTHER TRAVEL 5/31/12 LlU, URIO L OTHER TRAVEL 517112 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Tnp Purpose Code Date 

UU, URIO L OTHER TRAVEL 5/3/12 UU, URIO L OTHER TRAVEL 4/22/12 UU, URIO L INFORMATION MEETING 3/12/12 

L1U, URIO L OTHER TRAVEL 2/8112 

UU, URIO L INFORMATION MEETING 10/26/11 UU, URIO L INFORMATION MEETING 10/24/11 

LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 3/26113 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 3/11113 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 3/6/13 

LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE CERTIFICATE MANAGEMENT 2/13/13 

LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 1/28/13 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 1/13/13 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 12110/12 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 11/18112 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 11/13112 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 10/29112 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 10/21112 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 10/1/12 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 9/24/12 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 8/27/12 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 8/26/12 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 7/30/12 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 7/23/12 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 7/17/12 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE TRAINING ATTENDANCE 7/9/12 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 6/18/12 

LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 5/30/12 

LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 5/14/12 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 5/7/12 

LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 4/30/12 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 4/25/12 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 4/22/12 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 4/18/12 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4/11/12 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 3/25/12 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 3/18/12 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 3/15/12 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 3/12/12 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 3/5112 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code ADrrtival 

a e 

LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 2126112 

LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE OTHER TRAVEL 2/21/12 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 2/12112 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 1/29112 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 1/24112 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 1/18/12 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE OTHER TRAVEL 11/15111 

LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE TRAINING ATTENDANCE 1117111 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 11/2/11 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 10/21111 LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 10/14111 

LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 10/10/11 

LUCKE, EDWARD WALLACE SITE VISIT 10/2111 LYNCH,PETERJOSEPH OTHER TRAVEL 9/12/12 LYNCH,PETERJOSEPH OTHER TRAVEL 6/5112 LYNCH,PETERJOSEPH OTHER TRAVEL 4/25/12 LYNCH,PETERJOSEPH INFORMATION MEETING 2122/12 MACPHERSON,REBECCABYERS INFORMATION MEETING 9/1/12 MACPHERSON, REBECCA BYERS INFORMATION MEETING 7/15112 MACPHERSON, REBECCA BYERS CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/11/12 MACPHERSON, REBECCA BYERS CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/25112 MACPHERSON, REBECCA BYERS CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/18112 

MACPHERSON, REBECCA BYERS CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2/15112 MALLORY, MAMIE K INFORMATION MEETING 2/11113 MALLORY, MAMIE K SITE VISIT 10/9/12 MALLORY, MAMIE K CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 8/24/12 MALLORY, MAMIE K CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/25112 MALLORY, MAMIE K CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6110112 MALLORY, MAMIE K INFORMATION MEETING 4/26/12 MALLORY, MAMIE K CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/9112 

MALLORY, MAMIE K OTHER TRAVEL 3/5/12 MALLORY, MAMIE K OTHER TRAVEL 1112/12 MALLORY, MAMIE K INFORMATION MEETING 10124/11 MALLORY, MAMIE K TRAINING ATTENDANCE 10/13111 MANNO, CLAUDIO OTHER TRAVEL 7/30112 MANNO, CLAUDIO OTHER TRAVEL 4/25/12 MARCO, CARMEN NICHOLAS INFORMATION MEETING 4/26112 MARCO, CARMEN NICHOLAS INFORMATION MEETING 2/21/12 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code 

MAURICE, LOURDES QUINTANA CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/8/13 MAURICE, LOURDES QUINTANA CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2/27113 

MAURICE, LOURDES QUINTANA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11/5/12 MAURICE, LOURDES QUINTANA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/22/12 MAURICE, LOURDES QUINTANA INFORMATION MEETING 10/3/12 MAURICE, LOURDES QUINTANA CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/21/12 MAURICE, LOURDES QUINTANA CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 717112 MAURICE, LOURDES QUINTANA INFORMATION MEETING 6/21/12 MAURICE, LOURDES QUINTANA INFORMATION MEETING 6/19/12 MAURICE, LOURDES QUINTANA INFORMATION MEETING 6/19/12 MAURICE, LOURDES QUINTANA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/11/12 MAURICE, LOURDES QUINTANA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 5/3/12 MAURICE, LOURDES QUINTANA INFORMATION MEETING 4/26/12 MAURICE, LOURDES QUINTANA CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/15/12 MAURICE, LOURDES QUINTANA INFORMATION MEETING 3112/12 MAURICE, LOURDES QUINTANA INFORMATION MEETING 3/6/12 MAURICE, LOURDES QUINTANA CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2/23/12 MAURICE, LOURDES QUINTANA CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2115/12 MAURICE, LOURDES QUINTANA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/17/11 MCCARTHY, JODI S SITE VISIT 2/26113 MCCARTHY, JODI S SITE VISIT 1/29/13 MCCARTHY, JODI S SITE VISIT 12/5/12 MCCARTHY, JODI S OTHER TRAVEL 11/26112 

MCCARTHY, JODI S INFORMATION MEETING 10/4/12 MCCARTHY, JODI S INFORMATION MEETING 9/24/12 MCCARTHY, JODI S SITE VISIT 8/29/12 MCCARTHY, JODI S INFORMATION MEETING 7/30/12 MCCARTHY, JODI S INFORMATION MEETING 7/9/12 MCCARTHY, JODI S INFORMATION MEETING 6/14112 MCCARTHY, JODI S INFORMATION MEETING 4/30/12 MCCARTHY, JODI S INFORMATION MEETING 4/23/12 MCCARTHY, JODI S SITE VISIT 417112 MCCARTHY, JODI S INFORMATION MEETING 2/21/12 MCCARTHY, JODI S SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11/30/11 MCCARTHY, JODI S INFORMATION MEETING 11/28/11 MCCARTHY, JODI S INFORMATION MEETING 10/10111 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. SITE VISIT 3/1/13 

MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 2/26/13 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 2122/13 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Date 

MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 2111113 

MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 214113 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 1129113 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 12110112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 1213112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 1213112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 11126112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 1119112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 1117112 

MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. SITE VISIT 1112112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 10125112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 10123112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 10117112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 10113112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 10112112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. SITE VISIT 1014112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 1011112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 9117112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 9111112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 915112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 914112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 8127112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 816112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. SITE VISIT 811112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 7125112 

MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 7120112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 7116112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 6127112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 6121112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 6111112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 614112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. SITE VISIT 5131112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 5116112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 5116112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 5114112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 518112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 511112 

MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 4125112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 4123112 
, Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 4/9/12 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 3/28/12 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 3/20/12 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. SITE VISIT 3/19/12 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 3/14/12 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 2/29112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 2/15/12 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 2/6/12 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 1/23/12 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 1/17/12 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. SITE VISIT 1/8/12 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 1/3112 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 11/29/11 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 11/14/11 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 11/7/11 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 11/1/11 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 10/31/11 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 10/24/11 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G, INFORMATION MEETING 10120/11 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 10/18/11 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. SITE VISIT 10/10/11 MCCARTNEY, JOHN G. INFORMATION MEETING 10/3/11 MCCLARDY, MARK A. OTHER TRAVEL 3/6/13 MCCLARDY, MARK A. OTHER TRAVEL 1/21/13 

MCCLARDY, MARK A. INFORMATION MEETING 1/14/13 MCCLARDY, MARK A. INFORMATION MEETING 1/14/13 MCCLARDY, MARK A. INFORMATION MEETING 1/11/13 MCCLARDY, MARK A, INFORMATION MEETING 10/1112 MCCLARDY, MARK A. SITE VISIT 9/26/12 MCCLARDY, MARK A. INFORMATION MEETING 9/18/12 MCCLARDY, MARK A. OTHER TRAVEL 9/12/12 MCCLARDY, MARK A. INFORMATION MEETING 8/30/12 MCCLARDY, MARK A. INFORMATION MEETING 7/25/12 MCCLARDY, MARK A. INFORMATION MEETING 7/24/12 MCCLARDY, MARK A. INFORMATION MEETING 7/19/12 MCCLARDY, MARK A. SITE VISIT 7/11/12 MCCLARDY, MARK A. SITE VISIT 6/27/12 MCCLARDY, MARK A. SITE VISIT 6/26112 MCCLARDY, MARK A. SITE VISIT 6/25/12 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Tnp Purpose Code Date 

MCCLARDY, MARK A. INFORMATION MEETING 6111112 MCCLARDY, MARK A. CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5121112 MCCLARDY, MARK A. INFORMATION MEETING 5113112 MCCLARDY, MARK A. INFORMATION MEETING 4125112 MCCLARDY, MARK A. OTHER TRAVEL 3117112 MCCLARDY, MARK A. OTHER TRAVEL 318112 MCCLARDY, MARK A. OTHER TRAVEL 317112 MCCLARDY, MARK A. SITE VISIT 217112 MCCLARDY, MARK A. SITE VISIT 214112 MCCLARDY, MARK A. INFORMATION MEETING 1123112 MCCLARDY, MARK A. OTHER TRAVEL 1116112 MCCLARDY, MARK A. SITE VISIT 1111112 MCCLARDY, MARK A. INFORMATION MEETING 1214111 MCCLARDY, MARK A. INFORMATION MEETING 1212111 MCCLARDY, MARK A. INFORMATION MEETING 11110111 MCCLARDY, MARK A. SITE VISIT 1118111 MCCLARDY, MARK A. INFORMATION MEETING 1116111 MCCLARDY, MARK A. CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1114111 MCCLARDY, MARK A. CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10131111 MCCLARDY, MARK A. CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10118111 MCCLARDY, MARK A. INFORMATION MEETING 10114111 MCCORMICK, MICHAEL JOSEPH INFORMATION MEETING 1131113 MCCORMICK, MICHAEL JOSEPH INFORMATION MEETING 12110112 MCCORMICK, MICHAEL JOSEPH INFORMATION MEETING 1216112 MCCORMICK, MICHAEL JOSEPH INFORMATION MEETING 1213112 MCCORMICK, MICHAEL JOSEPH INFORMATION MEETING 11129112 MCCORMICK, MICHAEL JOSEPH INFORMATION MEETING 1115112 MCCORMICK, MICHAEL JOSEPH INFORMATION MEETING 10125112 MCCORMICK, MICHAEL JOSEPH INFORMATION MEETING 10122112 MCCORMICK, MICHAEL JOSEPH INFORMATION MEETING 1014112 MCCORMICK, MICHAEL JOSEPH INFORMATION MEETING 9117112 MCCORMICK, MICHAEL JOSEPH INFORMATION MEETING 9113112 MCCORMICK, MICHAEL JOSEPH INFORMATION MEETING 8130112 

MCCORMICK, MICHAEL JOSEPH INFORMATION MEETING 6125112 

MCCORMICK, MICHAEL JOSEPH INFORMATION MEETING 5123112 

MCCORMICK, MICHAEL JOSEPH INFORMATION MEETING 5121112 MCCORMICK, MICHAEL JOSEPH INFORMATION MEETING 4126112 MCCORMICK, MICHAEL JOSEPH INFORMATION MEETING 3114112 MCCORMICK, MICHAEL JOSEPH SITE VISIT 2128112 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code 

MCCORMICK, MICHAEL JOSEPH INFORMATION MEETING 2121112 MCCORMICK, MICHAEL JOSEPH INFORMATION MEETING 1129112 MCCORMICK, MICHAEL JOSEPH CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1117112 MCCORMICK, RICHARD D OTHER TRAVEL 8127112 MCCORMICK, RICHARD D OTHER TRAVEL 8122112 MCCORMICK, RICHARD D OTHER TRAVEL 7130112 MCCORMICK, RICHARD D TRAINING ATTENDANCE 6115112 MCCORMICK, RICHARD D TRAINING ATTENDANCE 6112112 

MCCORMICK, RICHARD D CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4124112 MCCORMICK, RICHARD D INFORMATION MEETING 11128111 MCCORMICK, RICHARD D OTHER TRAVEL 10125111 MCCOY, JEFFREY EDWARD INFORMATION MEETING 12112112 MCCOY, JEFFREY EDWARD OTHER TRAVEL 1215112 MCCOY, JEFFREY EDWARD INFORMATION MEETING 11114112 MCCOY, JEFFREY EDWARD SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10116112 MCCOY, JEFFREY EDWARD INFORMATION MEETING 1011112 MCCOY, JEFFREY EDWARD SITE VISIT 9118112 MCCOY, JEFFREY EDWARD SITE VISIT 9117112 MCCOY, JEFFREY EDWARD INFORMATION MEETING 8116112 MCCOY, JEFFREY EDWARD INFORMATION MEETING 7123112 MCCOY, JEFFREY EDWARD SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6125112 MCCOY, JEFFREY EDWARD OTHER TRAVEL 6111112 MCCOY, JEFFREY EDWARD INFORMATION MEETING 517112 MCCOY, JEFFREY EDWARD OTHER TRAVEL 4126112 

MCCOY, JEFFREY EDWARD SITE VISIT 2127112 

MCCOY, JEFFREY EDWARD INFORMATION MEETING 2121112 

MCCOY, JEFFREY EDWARD INFORMATION MEETING 216112 

MCCOY, JEFFREY EDWARD INFORMATION MEETING 1123112 MCCOY, JEFFREY EDWARD INFORMATION MEETING 119112 

MCCOY, JEFFREY EDWARD CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 12112111 

MCCOY, JEFFREY EDWARD SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11120111 MCCOY, JEFFREY EDWARD SITE VISIT 1117111 MCDOWELL, ALEXANDER M TRAINING ATTENDANCE 6112112 

MCDOWELL, ALEXANDER M SITE VISIT 5121112 

MCDOWELL, ALEXANDER M SITE VISIT 517112 MCDOWELL, ALEXANDER M SITE VISIT 4125112 MCGRAW, JOHN W INFORMATION MEETING 3115112 MCGRAW, JOHN W INFORMATION MEETING 315112 MCGRAW, JOHN W INFORMATION MEETING 2114112 
- Arrival 

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

MCGRAW, JOHN W INFORMATION MEETING 2111112 MCGRAW, JOHN W SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 211112 MCGRAW, JOHN W CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1123112 

MCGRAW, JOHN W SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1117112 MCGRAW, JOHN W INFORMATION MEETING 11115111 MCGRAW, JOHN W INFORMATION MEETING 1117111 MCGRAW, JOHN W INFORMATION MEETING 10126111 MCGRAW, JOHN W INFORMATION MEETING 10125111 MCGRAW, JOHN W INFORMATION MEETING 10110111 MCNALL, PATRICIA ANN SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 9117112 MCNALL, PATRICIA ANN SITE VISIT 5121112 MCNALL, PATRICIA ANN SITE VISIT 5120112 MCNALL, PATRICIA ANN SITE VISIT 518112 MCNALL, PATRICIA ANN SITE VISIT 516112 MCNALL, PATRICIA ANN OTHER TRAVEL 4124112 MCNALL, PATRICIA ANN SITE VISIT 4116112 MCNALL, PATRICIA ANN SITE VISIT 4115112 MCNALL, PATRICIA ANN SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 3128112 MCNALL, PATRICIA ANN OTHER TRAVEL 3113112 MCNALL, PATRICIA ANN OTHER TRAVEL 1217111 MCNALL, PATRICIA ANN OTHER TRAVEL 10125111 MELLODY, JEROME M INFORMATION MEETING 4126112 MERKLE, MICHELE MARIE INFORMATION MEETING 11113112 MERKLE, MICHELE MARIE SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10117112 MERKLE, MICHELE MARIE SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1019112 MERKLE, MICHELE MARIE SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 8115112 MERKLE, MICHELE MARIE INFORMATION MEETING 7122112 

MERKLE, MICHELE MARIE INFORMATION MEETING 7117112 MERKLE, MICHELE MARIE SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 712112 MERKLE, MICHELE MARIE INFORMATION MEETING 6118112 MERKLE, MICHELE MARIE INFORMATION MEETING 518112 MERKLE, MICHELE MARIE CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3127112 MERKLE, MICHELE MARIE INFORMATION MEETING 12115111 MERKLE, MICHELE MARIE OTHER TRAVEL 10126111 MERKLE, PETER JAY INFORMATION MEETING 5120112 MERKLE, PETER JAY INFORMATION MEETING 5120112 MERKLE, PETER JAY INFORMATION MEETING 316112 MERKLE, PETER JAY OTHER TRAVEL 1214111 METTS, CHRISTOPHER S INFORMATION MEETING 1213112 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code 

METTS, CHRISTOPHER S INFORMATION MEETING 10/15112 METTS, CHRISTOPHER S INFORMATION MEETING 9/17/12 METTS, CHRISTOPHER S INFORMATION MEETING 6126/12 METTS, CHRISTOPHER S INFORMATION MEETING 6/13/12 METTS, CHRISTOPHER S INFORMATION MEETING 6/11/12 METTS, CHRISTOPHER S INFORMATION MEETING 6/4/12 METTS, CHRISTOPHER S INFORMATION MEETING 5/21/12 METTS, CHRISTOPHER S INFORMATION MEETING 4/26/12 

METTS, CHRISTOPHER S INFORMATION MEETING 4/10/12 

METTS, CHRISTOPHER S INFORMATION MEETING 3/20/12 METTS, CHRISTOPHER S INFORMATION MEETING 2124/12 METTS, CHRISTOPHER S INFORMATION MEETING 2/23/12 METTS, CHRISTOPHER S INFORMATION MEETING 1/25/12 METTS, CHRISTOPHER S INFORMATION MEETING 1/24/12 METTS, CHRISTOPHER S OTHER TRAVEL 12/29/11 METTS, CHRISTOPHER S INFORMATION MEETING 12/13/11 METTS, CHRISTOPHER S INFORMATION MEETING 11/30/11 METTS, CHRISTOPHER S INFORMATION MEETING 11/17/11 METTS, CHRISTOPHER S INFORMATION MEETING 11/14/11 METTS, CHRISTOPHER S INFORMATION MEETING 11/6/11 METTS, CHRISTOPHER S OTHER TRAVEL 10/21/11 MILLER, SHIRLEY S CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/26/12 MILLER, SHIRLEY S SITE VISIT 12/5/11 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 2/26113 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/23/13 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 1/17113 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 12/5/12 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 11112/12 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 10128/12 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 10122112 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 10/15112 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/8/12 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/9112 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 8/28/12 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 8/14/12 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 7/23/12 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 6/26/12 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 6/13/12 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/10/12 
, Arriva

Traveler Name Trtp Purpose Code .. 

MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 5/31/12 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 5/23/12 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON OTHER TRAVEL 5/5/12 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 512/12 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 4/24/12 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 4/9/12 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 3/8/12 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 1/25/12 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 1124/12 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 1/20/12 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 11/29/11 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 10/24/11 MINIACE, JOSEPH NAPOLEON INFORMATION MEETING 10/18/11 

MOHLER, GISELE MUELLER SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 215/13 

MOHLER, GISELE MUELLER SITE VISIT 12111/12 MOHLER, GISELE MUELLER OTHER TRAVEL 11/13/12 MOHLER, GISELE MUELLER SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 7/23/12 MOHLER, GISELE MUELLER INFORMATION MEETING 6/18/12 MOHLER, GISELE MUELLER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5/23/12 MOHLER, GISELE MUELLER INFORMATION MEETING 4126/12 MOHLER, GISELE MUELLER SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4/13/12 MOHLER, GISELE MUELLER SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 3/27112 MOHLER, GISELE MUELLER TRAINING ATTENDANCE 3/6/12 

MOHLER, GISELE MUELLER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2/2/12 MOHLER, GISELE MUELLER SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/25/12 MOHLER, GISELE MUELLER SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/24/12 MOHLER, GISELE MUELLER SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/10/11 MOSELEY, KIMBERLY D TRAINING ATTENDANCE 10/10/12 MOSELEY, KIMBERLY D INFORMATION MEETING 4/24/12 MOSELEY, KIMBERLY D INFORMATION MEETING 4/3112 MOSELEY, KIMBERLY D INFORMATION MEETING 3/13/12 MOSELEY, KIMBERLY D INFORMATION MEETING 2/12112 MOSELEY, KIMBERLY D INFORMATION MEETING 1215/11 MOSELEY, KIMBERLY D SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11/8/11 

MOSELEY, KIMBERLY D SITE VISIT 1112/11 MOSELEY, KIMBERLY D SITE VISIT 10/31/11 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 3/5/13 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 2/25/13 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 2/11113 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Tnp Purpose Code Date 

MURPHY, DOUGLAS R SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 2/6/13 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 11/12/12 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11/6/12 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/24/12 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 10/14/12 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 10/9/12 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/28/12 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 9/14/12 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/9112 

MURPHY, DOUGLAS R SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 9/5/12 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 8/29/12 

MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 8/25112 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 8/16/12 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 8/6112 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 7/10/12 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 6/21112 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 6/6/12 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 5/16/12 

MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 5/11/12 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5/9112 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 5/3/12 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 4/24/12 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 4/9112 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 4/3112 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/27112 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 3/21112 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 2129/12 

MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 2/12112 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 1/22112 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R OTHER TRAVEL 1/17112 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 1/11112 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 10/31/11 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 10/24/11 MURPHY, DOUGLAS R INFORMATION MEETING 10/5111 NEPHEW, KENNETH R OTHER TRAVEL 3/1112 NEPHEW, KENNETH R OTHER TRAVEL 2/6/12 NEPHEW, KENNETH R OTHER TRAVEL 12/5/11 NEPHEW, KENNETH R SITE VISIT 11/28/11 NEPHEW, KENNETH R CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11/13/11 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

NEPHEW, KENNETH R OTHER TRAVEL 10/23/11 NIELD, GEORGE COOKE SITE VISIT 2128/13 NIELD, GEORGE COOKE SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/31/13 NIELD, GEORGE COOKE SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11/10/12 NIELD, GEORGE COOKE CONFERENCE ATIENDANCE 9/30/12 NIELD, GEORGE COOKE SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 8/13/12 NIELD, GEORGE COOKE SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 7/25112 NIELD, GEORGE COOKE SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 7/15/12 NIELD, GEORGE COOKE SITE VISIT 5/18/12 NIELD, GEORGE COOKE SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 5/15/12 NIELD, GEORGE COOKE INFORMATION MEETING 4/28/12 NIELD, GEORGE COOKE INFORMATION MEETING 4/27/12 NIELD, GEORGE COOKE INFORMATION MEETING 4/26/12 NIELD, GEORGE COOKE SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4/16/12 NIELD, GEORGE COOKE SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 3125/12 NIELD, GEORGE COOKE CONFERENCE A TIENDANCE 3/16112 NIELD, GEORGE COOKE SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 2/28/12 NIELD, GEORGE COOKE SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1117112 NIELD, GEORGE COOKE INFORMATION MEETING 12/8111 NIELD, GEORGE COOKE INFORMATION MEETING 11/28111 NIELD, GEORGE COOKE INFORMATION MEETING 11/14/11 NIELD, GEORGE COOKE SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/31111 NIELD, GEORGE COOKE SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/27111 

NIELD, GEORGE COOKE SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/24/11 

NIELD, GEORGE COOKE SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/16111 

O'DONNELL, MICHAEL J INFORMATION MEETING 12/17112 O'DONNELL, MICHAEL J SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/7112 O'DONNELL, MICHAEL J CONFERENCE ATIENDANCE 8/15/12 

O'DONNELL, MICHAEL J OTHER TRAVEL 7/1/12 O'DONNELL, MICHAEL J INFORMATION MEETING 5/30/12 O'DONNELL, MICHAEL J INFORMATION MEETING 4/25/12 O'DONNELL, MICHAEL J SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 3/22/12 O'DONNELL, MICHAEL J INFORMATION MEETING 3/6/12 O'DONNELL, MICHAEL J CONFERENCE ATIENDANCE 2/6/12 O'DONNELL, MICHAEL J SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/16/12 O'DONNELL, MICHAEL J SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/13/12 O'DONNELL, MICHAEL J INFORMATION MEETING 12/5/11 O'DONNELL, MICHAEL J SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11/14/11 O'DONNELL, MICHAEL J SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/17111 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code i 

OETTINGER, JULIE E INFORMATION MEETING 3/24/13 

OETTINGER, JULIE E INFORMATION MEETING 3/7/13 OETTINGER, JULIE E INFORMATION MEETING 2/18/13 OETTINGER, JULIE E INFORMATION MEETING 2/12/13 OETTINGER, JULIE E INFORMATION MEETING 2/6/13 OETTINGER, JULIE E INFORMATION MEETING 1/29/13 OETTINGER, JULIE E INFORMATION MEETING 12/11/12 OETTINGER, JULIE E INFORMATION MEETING 11/18/12 OETTINGER, JULIE E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11/8/12 

OETTINGER, JULIE E INFORMATION MEETING 11/5/12 OETTINGER, JULIE E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/24/12 OETTINGER, JULIE E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/15/12 OETTINGER, JULIE E INFORMATION MEETING 10/3112 OETTINGER, JULIE E INFORMATION MEETING 10/3112 OETTINGER, JULIE E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/26/12 OETTINGER, JULIE E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/24/12 OETTINGER, JULIE E INFORMATION MEETING 5/29/12 

OETTINGER, JULIE E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 5/22/12 OETTINGER, JULIE E INFORMATION MEETING 5/9/12 OETTINGER, JULIE E INFORMATION MEETING 4/26/12 OETTINGER, JULIE E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 3/21/12 OETTINGER, JULIE E INFORMATION MEETING 2/19/12 

OETTINGER, JULIE E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 2116/12 OETTINGER, JULIE E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 2/10/12 OETTINGER, JULIE E INFORMATION MEETING 2/2/12 OETTINGER, JULIE E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11/14/11 OETTINGER, JULIE E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/26/11 OETTINGER, JULIE E TRAINING ATTENDANCE 10/21/11 O'HARRA, MICHAEL CARLTON CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/11/13 O'HARRA, MICHAEL CARLTON SITE VISIT 2/26/13 O'HARRA, MICHAEL CARLTON SITE VISIT 12/18/12 O'HARRA, MICHAEL CARLTON OTHER TRAVEL 10/21/12 O'HARRA, MICHAEL CARLTON CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/15/12 O'HARRA, MICHAEL CARLTON TRAINING ATTENDANCE 9/23/12 

O'HARRA, MICHAEL CARLTON INFORMATION MEETING 8/14/12 O'HARRA, MICHAEL CARLTON INFORMATION MEETING 7/9/12 O'HARRA, MICHAEL CARLTON INFORMATION MEETING 4/24/12 O'HARRA, MICHAEL CARLTON CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/25/12 O'HARRA, MICHAEL CARLTON INFORMATION MEETING 1/8/12 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code I 

O'HARRA, MICHAEL CARLTON CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10124111 

OSTERDAHl, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 3111113 

OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 2/26/13 OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 2120113 OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 2/4/13 OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 1/10/13 OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 1/8/13 OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 12110112 

OSTERDAHl, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 12/3/12 

OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 11/7/12 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 11/5/12 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 10/24/12 

OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 10/23/12 OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 10/22/12 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 10/17/12 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 10/15/12 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 10/9112 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 1011112 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M TRAINING ATTENDANCE 9/23/12 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 9111112 

OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 8/27/12 

OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 8/23/12 OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 8/13/12 OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 8/6/12 

OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 7/25/12 

OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 7/16/12 OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 7/2/12 OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 6/26/12 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 6/4/12 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 5/7112 OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 5/4/12 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 4/29/12 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 4/25/12 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 4/23/12 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 4/18/12 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 4/9/12 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 4/2/12 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 3/22/12 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 3/20/12 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code 

OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 3119112 

OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 2129/12 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 2/14112 OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 1/31/12 OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 1/27/12 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 1/23/12 OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 1/17112 OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 1/3/12 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 12/12/11 

OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 1216/11 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 11/29/11 OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 11/27111 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 11114111 

OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 11/2/11 OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 10/24/11 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M SITE VISIT 10/20/11 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 10118111 OSTERDAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 10/11/11 OSTER DAHL, STEVEN M OTHER TRAVEL 10/3/11 

PASKIEWICZ, FRANK PAUL INFORMATION MEETING 214113 PASKIEWICZ, FRANK PAUL INFORMATION MEETING 10/9/12 PASKIEWICZ, FRANK PAUL INFORMATION MEETING 7/16/12 PASKIEWICZ, FRANK PAUL INFORMATION MEETING 5/30/12 PASKIEWICZ, FRANK PAUL INFORMATION MEETING 4/24/12 PASKIEWICZ, FRANK PAUL INFORMATION MEETING 4/11112 

PASKIEWICZ, FRANK PAUL INFORMATION MEETING 4/2/12 PASKIEWICZ, FRANK PAUL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/5/12 PASKIEWICZ, FRANK PAUL INFORMATION MEETING 1/9112 PAUSCH, PATRICIA ALICE SITE VISIT 3/3113 PAUSCH, PATRICIA ALICE SITE VISIT 2/26113 PAUSCH, PATRICIA ALICE SITE VISIT 1/21113 PAUSCH, PATRICIA ALICE SITE VISIT 1/16/13 

PAUSCH, PATRICIA ALICE INFORMATION MEETING 1115/13 PAUSCH, PATRICIA ALICE SITE VISIT 1/8113 PAUSCH, PATRICIA ALICE SITE VISIT 9/19112 PAUSCH, PATRICIA ALICE SITE VISIT 9/11112 PAUSCH, PATRICIA ALICE SITE VISIT 8/28/12 PAUSCH, PATRICIA ALICE SITE VISIT 8/21/12 PAUSCH, PATRICIA ALICE SITE VISIT 8/14/12 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code 

PAUSCH, PATRICIA ALICE INFORMATION MEETING 7130112 PAUSCH, PATRICIA ALICE SITE VISIT 7110112 PAUSCH, PATRICIA ALICE SITE VISIT 6112112 PAUSCH, PATRICIA ALICE SITE VISIT 519112 

PAUSCH, PATRICIA ALICE INFORMATION MEETING 4125112 PAUSCH, PATRICIA ALICE CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3128112 PAUSCH, PATRICIA ALICE TRAINING ATTENDANCE 3112112 PAUSCH, PATRICIA ALICE SITE VISIT 2128112 PAUSCH, PATRICIA ALICE INFORMATION MEETING 1/17112 

PAUSCH, PATRICIA ALICE SITE VISIT 12111111 

PAUSCH, PATRICIA ALICE SITE VISIT 11129111 

PLANTY, JEFFREY S CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3125113 PLANTY, JEFFREY S SITE VISIT 3119113 PLANTY, JEFFREY S INFORMATION MEETING 3111113 PLANTY, JEFFREY S INFORMATION MEETING 216113 PLANTY, JEFFREY S OTHER TRAVEL 214113 PLANTY, JEFFREY S SITE VISIT 12113112 

PLANTY, JEFFREY S SITE VISIT 12112112 PLANTY, JEFFREY S SITE VISIT 12111112 PLANTY, JEFFREY S SITE VISIT 12110112 PLANTY, JEFFREY S OTHER TRAVEL 1214112 PLANTY, JEFFREY S OTHER TRAVEL 1213112 

PLANTY, JEFFREY S INFORMATION MEETING 11127112 

PLANTY, JEFFREY S TRAINING ATTENDANCE 11116112 PLANTY, JEFFREY S TRAINING ATTENDANCE 10121/12 PLANTY, JEFFREY S TRAINING ATTENDANCE 10120112 PLANTY, JEFFREY S TRAINING ATTENDANCE 1019112 PLANTY, JEFFREY S OTHER TRAVEL 1011112 

PLANTY, JEFFREY S TRAINING ATTENDANCE 9116112 PLANTY, JEFFREY S CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9112112 PLANTY, JEFFREY S TRAINING ATTENDANCE 8120112 PLANTY, JEFFREY S INFORMATION MEETING 8116112 PLANTY, JEFFREY S INFORMATION MEETING 8113/12 PLANTY, JEFFREY S SITE VISIT 819112 PLANTY, JEFFREY S INFORMATION MEETING 7123112 PLANTY, JEFFREY S INFORMATION MEETING 7118112 

PLANTY, JEFFREY S TRAINING ATTENDANCE 719/12 PLANTY, JEFFREY S INFORMATION MEETING 6121112 PLANTY, JEFFREY S INFORMATION MEETING 5129112 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code I i 

PLANTY, JEFFREY S TRAINING ATTENDANCE 5/21/12 PLANTY, JEFFREY S INFORMATION MEETING 4/23/12 

PLANTY, JEFFREY S INFORMATION MEETING 3/12/12 PLANTY, JEFFREY S INFORMATION MEETING 3/6112 PLANTY, JEFFREY S INFORMATION MEETING 2/13/12 PLANTY, JEFFREY S SITE VISIT 2/2/12 PLANTY, JEFFREY S SITE VISIT 2/1112 

PLANTY, JEFFREY S SITE VISIT 11/8/11 PLANTY, JEFFREY S INFORMATION MEETING 10/30/11 PLANTY, JEFFREY S OTHER TRAVEL 10/27/11 

PLANTY, JEFFREY S INFORMATION MEETING 10/13111 RAY, ELIZABETH L SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 2/5/13 RAY, ELIZABETH L SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 2/4/13 RAY, ELIZABETH L OTHER TRAVEL 1/9/13 RAY, ELIZABETH L INFORMATION MEETING 1214/12 RAY, ELIZABETH L SITE VISIT 11/14/12 RAY, ELIZABETH L INFORMATION MEETING 10/30/12 RAY, ELIZABETH L INFORMATION MEETING 10/26/12 RAY, ELIZABETH L SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/15/12 RAY, ELIZABETH L CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 8/13/12 RAY, ELIZABETH L INFORMATION MEETING 8/8/12 RAY, ELIZABETH L INFORMATION MEETING 8/6/12 RAY, ELIZABETH L SITE VISIT 7/31112 

RAY, ELIZABETH L SITE VISIT 7/30/12 RAY, ELIZABETH L INFORMATION MEETING 6/12/12 RAY, ELIZABETH L INFORMATION MEETING 5/22/12 

RAY, ELIZABETH L INFORMATION MEETING 4/25/12 RAY, ELIZABETH L INFORMATION MEETING 4/17112 RAY, ELIZABETH L SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 3/30/12 RAY, ELIZABETH L TRAINING ATTENDANCE 3/17/12 RAY, ELIZABETH L SITE VISIT 2/24/12 RAY, ELIZABETH L SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/25/12 RAY, ELIZABETH L SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/23/12 RAY, ELIZABETH L SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/18/12 RAY, ELIZABETH L SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/17112 RAY, ELIZABETH L SITE VISIT 12/1/11 RAY, ELIZABETH L OTHER TRAVEL 11/22111 RAY, ELIZABETH L OTHER TRAVEL 11/21111 RAY, ELIZABETH L OTHER TRAVEL 11/8/11 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code i 

RAY, ELIZABETH L TRAINING ATTENDANCE 10/16/11 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 3/16113 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 3/13/13 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 3/12/13 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 3/9113 

REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 3/5/13 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 2/18/13 

REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 1/27/13 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 1/14/13 

REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETiNG 1/5/13 

REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 11/20/12 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/6/12 

REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 9/25/12 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 9/18/12 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 9/7/12 

REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 8/25/12 

REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 8/16/12 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 8/12/12 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 8/2/12 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 7/16/12 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 6/13/12 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 6/3112 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 6/3/12 

REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 5/21/12 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETiNG 5/4/12 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 4/29/12 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETiNG 4/27/12 

REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 4/25/12 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 4/18/12 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 4/17/12 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 4/15/12 

REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 3/24/12 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATiON MEETING 3/4/12 

REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK INFORMATION MEETING 2/18/12 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK OTHER TRAVEL 1214/11 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK OTHER TRAVEL 11/27/11 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK OTHER TRAVEL 10/21/11 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK OTHER TRAVEL 10/14/11 REEVES, JAMES MARK MARK OTHER TRAVEL 10/3/11 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code ; 

REYES, NICHOLAS INFORMATION MEETING 2/25/13 REYES, NICHOLAS INFORMATION MEETING 2/19/13 

REYES, NICHOLAS INFORMATION MEETING 2/4113 REYES, NICHOLAS INFORMATION MEETING 1122113 REYES, NICHOLAS SITE VISIT 1/6/13 REYES, NICHOLAS INFORMATION MEETING 12117/12 REYES, NICHOLAS INFORMATION MEETING 12110112 REYES, NICHOLAS SITE VISIT 1216/12 REYES, NICHOLAS SITE VISIT 11/26/12 REYES, NICHOLAS SITE VISIT 11/3/12 

REYES, NICHOLAS INFORMATION MEETING 10115/12 REYES, NICHOLAS INFORMATION MEETING 1019/12 REYES, NICHOLAS SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1011112 

REYES, NICHOLAS SITE VISIT 9127112 REYES, NICHOLAS SITE VISIT 9/20112 REYES, NICHOLAS SITE VISIT 9/14112 REYES, NICHOLAS INFORMATION MEETING 9111112 REYES, NICHOLAS INFORMATION MEETING 8127112 REYES, NICHOLAS SITE VISIT 6117112 

REYES, NICHOLAS CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4127112 

REYES, NICHOLAS CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/24112 REYES, NICHOLAS SITE VISIT 414112 REYES, NICHOLAS TRAINING ATTENDANCE 3126112 REYES, NICHOLAS INFORMATION MEETING 3122112 REYES, NICHOLAS INFORMATION MEETING 314112 REYES, NICHOLAS INFORMATION MEETING 2121/12 REYES, NICHOLAS SITE VISIT 1125/12 REYES, NICHOLAS SITE VISIT 1/18/12 REYES, NICHOLAS INFORMATION MEETING 118/12 

REYES, NICHOLAS CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 12114111 REYES, NICHOLAS SITE VISIT 12/7111 REYES, NICHOLAS SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11/12111 REYES, NICHOLAS SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11/5111 RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 12/17/12 

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 12/10112 

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 1213/12 

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 11119112 
Traveler Name i Trip Purpose Code D

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 1116112 D

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 10124112 A

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 10/22112 A

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 10115112 W

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 1019/12 O

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 1011112 H

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 9/26112 J

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 9/24112 J

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 9/17112 H

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 915112 H

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 8/27112 W

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 8/22112 L

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 8/13112 D

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 8/8112 W

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 8/6112 I

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 7/23112 R

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 7/17112 A

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 7/12112 M

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 7/11112 W

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 6/28112 W

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 6/11112 W

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 5131/12 W

CHARLES 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code I 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 5/23/12 

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 5/15/12 

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 4/24/12 

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 4/23/12 

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 4/11112 

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 3/21112 

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 3/20/12 

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 3/6112 

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE SITE VISIT 2/29/12 

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE SITE VISIT 2/29/12 

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 2/27/12 

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 2/21/12 

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 1/30/12 

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 1/25/12 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 1/17112 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 1/11/12 

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE INFORMATION MEETING 1/8112 

CHARLES 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 1/4/12 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 12/12111 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES SITE VISIT 12/5/11 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 11/7/11 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 11/2/11 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES OTHER TRAVEL 10/24111 
Traveler Name ,I Trip Purpose Code ) I 

RICHARDS, JR, LAWRENCE 

CHARLES 

RICKARD, DAVID BURKE 

RITMAN, ALLISON WHITE 

RITZ, BARBARA GANS RITZ, BARBARA GANS 

RITZ, BARBARA GANS RITZ, BARBARA GANS 

RITZ, BARBARA GANS RITZ, BARBARA GANS 

RITZ, BARBARA GANS RITZ, BARBARA GANS RITZ, BARBARA GANS RITZ, BARBARA GANS RITZ, BARBARA GANS 

RITZ, BARBARA GANS 

RITZ, BARBARA GANS 

RITZ, BARBARA GANS 

RITZ, BARBARA GANS RITZ, BARBARA GANS RITZ, BARBARA GANS RITZ, BARBARA GANS RITZ, BARBARA GANS 

RITZ, BARBARA GANS 

RITZ, BARBARA GANS RITZ, BARBARA GANS 

RITZ, BARBARA GANS RITZ, BARBARA GANS 

RITZ, BARBARA GANS RITZ, BARBARA GANS RITZ, BARBARA GANS 

RITZ, BARBARA GANS RIVERA, FANNY RIVERA, FANNY ROBERTS, DENNIS E ROBERTS, DENNIS E 

ROBERTS, DENNIS E ROBERTS, DENNIS E 

ROBERTS, DENNIS E 

INFORMATION MEETING 

SITE VISIT 

INFORMATION MEETING 

OTHER TRAVEL OTHER TRAVEL OTHER TRAVEL OTHER TRAVEL OTHER TRAVEL OTHER TRAVEL 

OTHER TRAVEL 

OTHER TRAVEL 

OTHER TRAVEL 

OTHER TRAVEL OTHER TRAVEL 

OTHER TRAVEL OTHER TRAVEL OTHER TRAVEL 

OTHER TRAVEL OTHER TRAVEL OTHER TRAVEL OTHER TRAVEL OTHER TRAVEL 

OTHER TRAVEL OTHER TRAVEL OTHER TRAVEL 

OTHER TRAVEL 

OTHER TRAVEL OTHER TRAVEL 

OTHER TRAVEL OTHER TRAVEL 

OTHER TRAVEL 

CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 

SPEECH OR PRESENTATION SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 

INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING 

SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 

10/11/11 

4/25/12 4/24/12 

12/18/12 11/26/12 11/13/12 10/23/12 

10/15/12 

10/3/12 

9/9/12 

8/29/12 8/23/12 

8/8112 

7/18/12 

6/12/12 

6/6112 

5/21/12 

5/1/12 

4/24/12 4/16/12 

4/9/12 

3/21/12 

2/28/12 2/12/12 

217112 

1/18/12 1/11/12 

12/13/11 

11/15/11 

11/1/11 

10/11/11 

6/10/12 

10/16/11 

3/5/13 3/3/13 

1116/13 

11119/12 

10/28/12 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code 

ROBERTS, DENNIS E TRAINING ATTENDANCE 10/21/12 ROBERTS, DENNIS E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/14/12 

ROBERTS, DENNIS E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/11/12 

ROBERTS, DENNIS E INFORMATION MEETING 9/19/12 ROBERTS, DENNIS E INFORMATION MEETING 9/18/12 ROBERTS, DENNIS E INFORMATION MEETING 9/12/12 ROBERTS, DENNIS E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 8/14/12 

ROBERTS, DENNIS E INFORMATION MEETING 7/18/12 ROBERTS, DENNIS E INFORMATION MEETING 7/17112 ROBERTS, DENNIS E INFORMATION MEETING 7/16/12 ROBERTS, DENNIS E INFORMATION MEETING 6/13/12 ROBERTS, DENNIS E INFORMATION MEETING 5/14/12 

ROBERTS, DENNIS E INFORMATION MEETING 4/26/12 ROBERTS, DENNIS E INFORMATION MEETING 4/24/12 ROBERTS, DENNIS E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4/18/12 ROBERTS, DENNIS E INFORMATION MEETING 4/4/12 ROBERTS, DENNIS E INFORMATION MEETING 4/3/12 ROBERTS, DENNIS E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 3/18112 ROBERTS, DENNIS E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 3/4/12 

ROBERTS, DENNIS E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 2/27/12 ROBERTS, DENNIS E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 2/27/12 ROBERTS, DENNIS E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 2/12112 ROBERTS, DENNIS E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/31/12 ROBERTS, DENNIS E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/27/12 ROBERTS, DENNIS E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/24/12 ROBERTS, DENNIS E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/9/12 

ROBERTS, DENNIS E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 12/7/11 

ROBERTS, DENNIS E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 12/5/11 ROBERTS, DENNIS E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/19/11 ROBERTS, DENNIS E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/18/11 

ROBERTS, DENNIS E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/17/11 ROBERTS, DENNIS E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/14/11 ROCHELEAU, CHRISTOPHER INFORMATION MEETING 2/6/13 

JOSEPH 

ROCHELEAU, CHRISTOPHER INFORMATION MEETING 11/30/12 

JOSEPH 

ROCHELEAU, CHRISTOPHER INFORMATION MEETING 11/30/12 

JOSEPH 

ROCHELEAU, CHRISTOPHER INFORMATION MEETING 10/26/12 

JOSEPH 
Traveler Name i Trip Purpose Code I ! 

ROCHELEAU, CHRISTOPHER INFORMATION MEETING 10/3/12 

JOSEPH 

ROCHELEAU, CHRISTOPHER SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 9/20/12 

JOSEPH 

ROCHELEAU, CHRISTOPHER SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 8/29/12 

JOSEPH 

ROCHELEAU, CHRISTOPHER CONFERENCE A TIENDANCE 8/5112 

JOSEPH 

ROCHELEAU, CHRISTOPHER INFORMATION MEETING 5/23/12 

JOSEPH 

ROCHELEAU, CHRISTOPHER CONFERENCE ATIENDANCE 4/26112 

JOSEPH 

ROCHELEAU, CHRISTOPHER OTHER TRAVEL 3/18/12 

JOSEPH 

ROCHELEAU, CHRISTOPHER INFORMATION MEETING 2/2/12 

JOSEPH 

ROCHELEAU, CHRISTOPHER SITE VISIT 10/28/11 

JOSEPH 

ROCHELEAU, CHRISTOPHER SITE VISIT 10/27/11 

JOSEPH 

ROCHELEAU, CHRISTOPHER CONFERENCEATIENDANCE 10/11/11 

JOSEPH 

ROGERS, CHERYL D SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 2/13/13 

ROGERS, CHERYL D INFORMATION MEETING 1/16113 

ROGERS, CHERYL D INFORMATION MEETING 9/22112 ROGERS, CHERYL D INFORMATION MEETING 4/28/12 

ROGERS, CHERYL D INFORMATION MEETING 4/24/12 ROGERS, CHERYL D INFORMATION MEETING 3/5112 ROGERS, CHERYL D CONFERENCE A TIENDANCE 2/27/12 ROGERS, CHERYL D CONFERENCE A TIENDANCE 2/13/12 ROGERS, CHERYL D INFORMATION MEETING 2/9/12 ROGERS, CHERYL D INFORMATION MEETING 119112 

ROGERS, CHERYL D INFORMATION MEETING 12/10/11 ROMANOWSKI, MICHAEL C INFORMATION MEETING 2/5/13 ROMANOWSKI, MICHAEL C INFORMATION MEETING 2/4/13 ROMANOWSKI, MICHAEL C INFORMATION MEETING 8/1/12 ROMANOWSKI, MICHAEL C INFORMATION MEETING 4/4/12 ROMANOWSKI, MICHAEL C CONFERENCE A TIENDANCE 2/2/12 ROONEY, CYNTHIA OTHER TRAVEL 4/24/12 ROSEBORO, DOUGLAS WILLARD INFORMATION MEETING 4/24/12 ROSEBORO, DOUGLAS WILLARD INFORMATION MEETING 1/17112 ROSEBORO, DOUGLAS WILLARD INFORMATION MEETING 11/18111 
Traveler Name I Trip Purpose Code i 

ROSEBORO, DOUGLAS WILLARD INFORMATION MEETING 11115111 ROTTMAN, ROBERT MICHAEL INFORMATION MEETING 3114113 ROTTMAN, ROBERT MICHAEL INFORMATION MEETING 3111113 ROTTMAN, ROBERT MICHAEL INFORMATION MEETING 3110113 ROTTMAN, ROBERT MICHAEL INFORMATION MEETING 11126112 

ROTTMAN, ROBERT MICHAEL INFORMATION MEETING 912112 RYAN, THOMAS DAVID OTHER TRAVEL 7130112 RYAN, THOMAS DAVID OTHER TRAVEL 4125112 

SACHSE, BRIE NICOLE INFORMATION MEETING 11120112 SACHSE, BRIE NICOLE CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10126112 SACHSE, BRIE NICOLE INFORMATION MEETING 9118/12 SACHSE, BRIE NICOLE INFORMATION MEETING 7/25/12 

SACHSE, BRIE NICOLE INFORMATION MEETING 6/27/12 SACHSE, BRIE NICOLE INFORMATION MEETING 5/9/12 SACHSE, BRIE NICOLE INFORMATION MEETING 4/26/12 SACHSE, BRIE NICOLE INFORMATION MEETING 4/4/12 SACHSE, BRIE NICOLE INFORMATION MEETING 2129/12 SACHSE, BRIE NICOLE INFORMATION MEETING 212/12 SALTSMAN, RICHARD HARPER OTHER TRAVEL 8/29/12 

SALTSMAN, RICHARD HARPER OTHER TRAVEL 5/16/12 SALTSMAN, RICHARD HARPER CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/26112 SALTSMAN, RICHARD HARPER SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/12/12 SAN MARTIN, FRANK J SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 5/7/12 SAN MARTIN, FRANK J TRAINING ATTENDANCE 4/16/12 SANCHEZ, SANDRA M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/26/12 

SANCHEZ, SANDRA M CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/26/12 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY SITE VISIT 3/24/13 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 2/26/13 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 1/17113 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 12/18/12 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY TRAINING ATTENDANCE 11/13/12 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY SITE VISIT 10/26/12 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/11/12 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY OTHER TRAVEL 10/9/12 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 10/3/12 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 9127/12 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY SITE VISIT 9/24/12 

SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 9/14/12 

SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 9/10/12 
, Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 8/29/12 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY SITE VISIT 7/18/12 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 6/18/12 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY SITE VISIT 6/12/12 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 6/7/12 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY SITE VISIT 5/22/12 

SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY SITE VISIT 5/18/12 

SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 517112 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 4/25/12 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 4/16/12 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 4/11/12 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 3/28/12 

SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 3/13/12 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 3/4/12 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 2/28/12 

SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 2/23/12 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 2/23/12 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 2/9112 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY SITE VISIT 1/26/12 

SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 1/18/12 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY SITE VISIT 1/12/12 

SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 12127/11 

SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY SITE VISIT 12/15/11 

SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 12/5111 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 12/2/11 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 10/26/11 SCHALK, SUSAN MOWERY INFORMATION MEETING 10/25/11 

SHELLABARGER, NANCY ELLEN INFORMATION MEETING 2/6/13 SHELLABARGER, NANCY ELLEN INFORMATION MEETING 7/15/12 

SHELLABARGER, NANCY ELLEN INFORMATION MEETING 4/26112 

SHELLABARGER, NANCY ELLEN SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 2/2/12 

SHERIDAN, PAULJ TRAINING ATTENDANCE 11/26/12 SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 10/24/12 SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 10/15112 SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 9/23/12 SHERIDAN, PAUL J SITE VISIT 9/18112 

SHERIDAN, PAUL J SITE VISIT 9/17/12 SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 9/12/12 SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 9/10/12 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date 

SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 8/27/12 SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 8/20/12 SHERIDAN, PAUL J SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 8/1/12 SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 7/24/12 SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 7/16/12 

SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 7/12/12 

SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 6/4112 SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 5/15/12 SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 5/14/12 SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 4/30/12 SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 4/26/12 SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 4123112 SHERIDAN, PAUL J SITE VISIT 4/19/12 

SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 4/9/12 SHERIDAN, PAUL J SITE VISIT 4/4/12 

SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 3/23112 SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 3/20/12 SHERIDAN, PAUL J SITE VISIT 3/16/12 SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 3/1112 

SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 2/21112 SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 2/6/12 SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 1/17/12 SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 12/19/11 

SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 12/12/11 

SHERIDAN, PAULJ INFORMATION MEETING 12/7111 SHERIDAN, PAULJ INFORMATION MEETING 11/30111 SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 11/30/11 

SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 11/14/11 

SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 11/8111 SHERIDAN, PAUL J SITE VISIT 10/26/11 

SHERIDAN, PAUL J OTHER TRAVEL 10/19/11 SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 10/11/11 SHERIDAN, PAUL J INFORMATION MEETING 10/3111 SIEG, STANLEY ALLEN OTHER TRAVEL 2/26/13 

SIEG, STANLEY ALLEN OTHER TRAVEL 2/7/13 SIEG, STANLEY ALLEN OTHER TRAVEL 11/13/12 SIEG, STANLEY ALLEN OTHER TRAVEL 11/2112 SIEG, STANLEY ALLEN OTHER TRAVEL 10/25/12 

SIEG, STANLEY ALLEN ENTITLEMENT TRAVEL 10/5112 
· Arrival ' 

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date I 

SIEG, STANLEY ALLEN OTHER TRAVEL 10/1/12 SIEG, STANLEY ALLEN OTHER TRAVEL 9/20/12 

SIEG, STANLEY ALLEN OTHER TRAVEL 9/6/12 SIEG, STANLEY ALLEN ENTITLEMENT TRAVEL 8/16/12 SIEG, STANLEY ALLEN OTHER TRAVEL 7/29/12 SIEG, STANLEY ALLEN OTHER TRAVEL 7/22/12 SIEG, STANLEY ALLEN OTHER TRAVEL 4/24/12 SIEG, STANLEY ALLEN OTHER TRAVEL 4/9/12 

SIEG, STANLEY ALLEN OTHER TRAVEL 10/24111 SMILEY, DANIEL E INFORMATION MEETING 12/9/12 SMILEY, DANIEL E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11/14/12 SMILEY, DANIEL E SITE VISIT 10/24/12 

SMILEY, DANIEL E SITE VISIT 10/23/12 SMILEY, DANIEL E SITE VISIT 8/9/12 SMILEY, DANIEL E SITE VISIT 7/17112 SMILEY, DANIEL E SITE VISIT 7/16/12 SMILEY, DANIEL E INFORMATION MEETING 6/21112 SMILEY, DANIEL E INFORMATION MEETING 6/20/12 

SMILEY, DANIEL E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/12/12 SMILEY, DANIEL E INFORMATION MEETING 5/22/12 SMILEY, DANIEL E INFORMATION MEETING 5/16/12 SMILEY, DANIEL E INFORMATION MEETING 5/14/12 SMILEY, DANIEL E INFORMATION MEETING 3/26/12 

SMILEY, DANIEL E OTHER TRAVEL 2/8112 SMILEY, DANIEL E SITE VISIT 1/25/12 SMILEY, DANIEL E INFORMATION MEETING 12/9/11 SMILEY, DANIEL E INFORMATION MEETING 11/13/11 SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY OTHER TRAVEL 3/3/13 SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY INFORMATION MEETING 2/11113 SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY INFORMATION MEETING 1/28/13 SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY INFORMATION MEETING 1114/13 SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY OTHER TRAVEL 12/3/12 

SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY OTHER TRAVEL 11/7112 SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY SITE VISIT 10/25/12 SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY SITE VISIT 10/24/12 SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY OTHER TRAVEL 10/15/12 SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY INFORMATION MEETING 9/18/12 SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY SITE VISIT 9/12/12 SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY INFORMATION MEETING 8/20/12 
· i Arrival 

Traveler Name Tnp Purpose Code i Date 

SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY 

SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY 

SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY 

SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY 

SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY 

SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY 

SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY 

SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY SMITH, KIMBERLY KAY 

SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD 

SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD 

SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD 

SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD 

SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD 

SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD 

SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD 

SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD 

SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD 

SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD 

SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD 

SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD 

SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD 

SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD 

SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD 

SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD 

SMITH, LESLIE HOWARD 

SITE VISIT SITE VISIT 

ENTITLEMENT TRAVEL 

CONFERENCE ATIENDANCE 

CONFERENCE A TIENDANCE 

INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING 

INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING 

OTHER TRAVEL 

CONFERENCEATIENDANCE 

SITE VISIT SITE VISIT OTHER TRAVEL 

INFORMATION MEETING 

INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING 

INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING 

INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING 

INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING 

SITE VISIT 

CONFERENCE A TIENDANCE 

SITE VISIT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 

INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING 

OTHER TRAVEL SITE VISIT 

SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 

6/27/12 6/26/12 

6/18/12 6/11/12 

5/22/12 

4/24/12 

1/29/12 

1/9/12 1/3/12 

12/12/11 

12/4/11 

11/28/11 11/14/11 10/17/11 

2/24/13 

1/30/13 1/22/13 1/16/13 

1114/13 

12/18/12 11/10112 

9/30/12 9/17/12 

8/21/12 8/12/12 

6/10/12 

5/18/12 

5/9/12 

4/25/12 4/14/12 

2/6112 

1/21/12 

12/11/11 

12/5/11 

11/29/11 11/13/11 10/31/11 10/21/11 

10/8/11 
· Arriv

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code ) Date 

SOLCO, KELVIN L INFORMATION MEETING 12/17/12 SOLCO, KELVIN L CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11/13/12 

SOLCO, KELVIN L INFORMATION MEETING 10/5/12 SOLCO, KELVIN L INFORMATION MEETING 9/24/12 SOLCO, KELVIN L OTHER TRAVEL 9/17112 SOLCO, KELVIN L OTHER TRAVEL 8/5/12 SOLCO, KELVIN L OTHER TRAVEL 7/25112 SOLCO, KELVIN L OTHER TRAVEL 7/18/12 SOLCO, KELVIN L OTHER TRAVEL 7/9/12 SOLCO, KELVIN L OTHER TRAVEL 6/27112 SOLCO, KELVIN L OTHER TRAVEL 6/12/12 SOLCO, KELVIN L OTHER TRAVEL 6/6/12 SOLCO, KELVIN L OTHER TRAVEL 4/25/12 SOLCO, KELVIN L OTHER TRAVEL 4/15/12 

SOLCO, KELVIN L OTHER TRAVEL 4/9/12 

SOLCO, KELVIN L OTHER TRAVEL 3/29/12 

SOLCO, KELVIN L OTHER TRAVEL 2/27112 SOLCO, KELVIN L OTHER TRAVEL 1/9/12 

SOLCO, KELVIN L OTHER TRAVEL 12/12/11 

SOLCO, KELVIN L OTHER TRAVEL 12/4/11 SOLCO, KELVIN L OTHER TRAVEL 11/21/11 SOLCO, KELVIN L OTHER TRAVEL 10/23/11 SOLCO, KELVIN L OTHER TRAVEL 10/10/11 SPAMPINATO, FRANCIS C INFORMATION MEETING 11/19/12 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 3/31113 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 3/25113 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 3/17113 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 3/11/13 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE TRAINING ATTENDANCE 2/13/13 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 1/30/13 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 1/28/13 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 1/22/13 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 12/10112 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 12/4/12 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE ENTITLEMENT TRAVEL 11/28/12 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 11/5112 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 10/29/12 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 10/22/12 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 10/15/12 
Traveler Name ! Trip Purpose Code 

SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 10/9/12 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 9/24/12 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 8/6/12 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 7/16/12 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 6/25/12 

SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 6/4/12 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 5/14/12 

SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 517112 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 4/23/12 

SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 4/11/12 

SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE OTHER TRAVEL 4/9/12 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 3/19/12 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 2/21/12 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 1/31/12 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 1/17112 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 12/4/11 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 11/14111 

SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 10/5111 SPENCER, DAVID EUGENE INFORMATION MEETING 1012111 STUBBLEFIELD, ANGELA HANDLEY INFORMATION MEETING 7/30/12 STUBBLEFIELD, ANGELA HANDLEY TRAINING ATTENDANCE 4/25/12 STUBBLEFIELD, ANGELA HANDLEY TRAINING ATTENDANCE 1/8112 SUOMI, DAVID C CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/11113 

SUOMI, DAVID C INFORMATION MEETING 2/26/13 SUOMI, DAVID C SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 2/22113 SUOMI, DAVID C OTHER TRAVEL 1/21/13 SUOMI, DAVID C INFORMATION MEETING 1/15/13 SUOMI, DAVID C INFORMATION MEETING 1/9113 SUOMI, DAVID C INFORMATION MEETING 10/15/12 

SUOMI, DAVID C INFORMATION MEETING 10/9/12 

SUOMI, DAVID C OTHER TRAVEL 9/26112 SUOMI, DAVID C OTHER TRAVEL 9/26/12 SUOMI, DAVID C SITE VISIT 9/20/12 SUOMI, DAVID C CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/10/12 SUOMI, DAVID C INFORMATION MEETING 8/27/12 

SUOMI, DAVID C INFORMATION MEETING 8/20/12 SUOMI, DAVID C SITE VISIT 7/30/12 SUOMI, DAVID C INFORMATION MEETING 6/27/12 SUOMI, DAVID C OTHER TRAVEL 5/13/12 
Traveler Name I Trip Purpose Code ! AOrrtival 

i iae 

SUOMI, DAVID C OTHER TRAVEL 4/24/12 SUOMI, DAVID C OTHER TRAVEL 4/9/12 SUOMI, DAVID C TRAINING ATTENOANCE 3/9/12 

SUOMI, DAVID C CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/5112 SUOMI, DAVID C INFORMATION MEETING 2/5/12 SUOMI, DAVID C INFORMATION MEETING 1/31112 SUOMI, DAVID C INFORMATION MEETING 12/6/11 SUOMI, DAVID C TRAINING ATTENDANCE 11/2/11 

TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 3/26113 TARRH, JO L SITE VISIT 3/15/13 

TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 3/4/13 TARRH, JO L INFORMATION MEETING 1/18/13 TARRH, JO L INFORMATION MEETING 1/16/13 TARRH, JO L INFORMATION MEETING 1/15/13 TARRH, JO l INFORMATION MEETING 1/9/13 TARRH, JO L ENTITLEMENT TRAVEL 11/9/12 TARRH, JO l OTHER TRAVEL 10/26/12 TARRH, JO L SITE VISIT 10/3/12 

TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 10/1/12 TARRH, JO L SITE VISIT 9/27112 TARRH,JO L SITE VISIT 9/4/12 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 9/3/12 

TARRH, JO l OTHER TRAVEL 8/26/12 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 8/22/12 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 8/19/12 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 8/12/12 

TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 7/31/12 

TARRH, JO l OTHER TRAVEL 7/23/12 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 7/22/12 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 7/16/12 TARRH, JOl OTHER TRAVEL 7/11/12 

TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 7/9/12 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 7/5/12 

TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 7/2/12 

TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 6/26112 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 6/20/12 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 6/18/12 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 6m12 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 6/4/12 
! . Arriva

Traveler Name i Trip Purpose Code 1 Date 

TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 5/14/12 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 5/7/12 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 5/3/12 

TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 4/30/12 

TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 4/26/12 

TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 4/25/12 

TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 4/18/12 

TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 4/17/12 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 4116/12 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 4/9/12 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 3/19112 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 3112/12 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 3/5/12 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 2/28112 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 2/27/12 

TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 2/21112 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 2/14/12 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 11/8/11 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 11/1111 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 10/24111 TARRH, JOL OTHER TRAVEL 10117/11 TARRH, JO L OTHER TRAVEL 10/13/11 TARRH,JO L OTHER TRAVEL 1013/11 

TARTER, ROBERT OLIVER CONFERENCE ATIENDANCE 4126/12 TARTER, ROBERT OLIVER TRAINING ATIENDANCE 10116111 TASH, NATHAN S INFORMATION MEETING 4126112 

TASH, NATHAN S TRAINING ATIENDANCE 11/7111 TAYLOR, DONNA PAULINE INFORMATION MEETING 12/26111 TAYLOR, DONNA PAULINE INFORMATION MEETING 12/19111 TAYLOR, DONNA PAULINE SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11/16111 TAYLOR, DONNA PAULINE INFORMATION MEETING 10/23111 TEDFORD, ANN LORA INFORMATION MEETING 4/26/12 TEDFORD, ANN LORA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11/7/11 TEDFORD, ANN LORA SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/19111 TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/3/13 TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA INFORMATION MEETING 1/30/13 TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA INFORMATION MEETING 12/18112 

TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA INFORMATION MEETING 1216/12 TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA CONFERENCE ATIENDANCE 10/25112 
· Arriva

Traveler Name Trtp Purpose Code Date 

TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA INFORMATION MEETING 10/18/12 TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA INFORMATION MEETING 1011112 TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/17/12 TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA INFORMATION MEETING 7/22/12 

TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/26/12 TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA SITE VISIT 6/19/12 TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA INFORMATION MEETING 5/15/12 

TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA INFORMATION MEETING 5/7/12 TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5/1/12 TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA INFORMATION MEETING 4/25112 TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA INFORMATION MEETING 4/13/12 TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/10/12 TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA INFORMATION MEETING 4/2/12 

TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA INFORMATION MEETING 2/6112 TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1/30/12 TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA INFORMATION MEETING 1/24/12 TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1/17112 TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA INFORMATION MEETING 1/11/12 TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA INFORMATION MEETING 12/5/11 TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/28/11 TEIXEIRA, JOSEPH SOUSA CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/18111 THOMSON, KATHRYN B SITE VISIT 3/4/13 

THOMSON, KATHRYN B CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 12/18112 THOMSON, KATHRYN B CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/24/12 THOMSON, KATHRYN B SITE VISIT 8/22/12 

THOMSON, KATHRYN B SITE VISIT 8/20/12 THOMSON, KATHRYN B OTHER TRAVEL 7/6/12 THOMSON, KATHRYN B SITE VISIT 6/5112 THOMSON, KATHRYN B CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4/26/12 THOMSON, KATHRYN B CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2/19/12 TIL TON, FREDERICK E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 3/13113 TILTON, FREDERICK E TRAINING ATTENDANCE 2/18/13 TILTON, FREDERICK E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1/24/13 TIL TON, FREDERICK E TRAINING ATTENDANCE 12/9/12 TIL TON, FREDERICK E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11/15/12 TIL TON, FREDERICK E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11/5/12 TILTON, FREDERICK E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/23112 TILTON, FREDERICK E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/10/12 TILTON, FREDERICK E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/9/12 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code 

TIL TON, FREDERICK E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 8121112 

TIL TON, FREDERICK E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 7125112 TILTON, FREDERICK E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5111112 TILTON, FREDERICK E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4125112 TILTON, FREDERICK E INFORMATION MEETING 4110112 

TILTON, FREDERICK E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3129112 TILTON, FREDERICK E SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 212112 TILTON, FREDERICK E CERTIFICATE MANAGEMENT 113112 

TILTON, FREDERICK E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11115111 TIL TON, FREDERICK E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10118111 TIL TON, FREDERICK E CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1015111 TONER, KARLIN ROTH SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 1117112 TONER, KARLIN ROTH SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 5122112 TONER, KARLIN ROTH OTHER TRAVEL 4126112 

TONER, KARLIN ROTH SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 4117112 TONER, KARLIN ROTH SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 312112 TONER, KARLIN ROTH SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 2129112 TOWLES, RAYMOND INFORMATION MEETING 12110112 TOWLES, RAYMOND SITE VISIT 10123112 TOWLES, RAYMOND SITE VISIT 10121112 TOWLES, RAYMOND SITE VISIT 5121112 

TOWLES, RAYMOND INFORMATION MEETING 518112 TOWLES, RAYMOND SITE VISIT 4124112 TOWLES, RAYMOND INFORMATION MEETING 4123112 

TOWLES, RAYMOND INFORMATION MEETING 2128112 TOWLES, RAYMOND INFORMATION MEETING 10119111 TUCKER JR, JOSEPH ROBBINS INFORMATION MEETING 1214112 TUCKER JR, JOSEPH ROBBINS INFORMATION MEETING 9117112 TUCKER JR, JOSEPH ROBBINS TRAINING ATTENDANCE 8120112 TUCKER JR, JOSEPH ROBBINS SITE VISIT 7124112 TUCKER JR, JOSEPH ROBBINS INFORMATION MEETING 4124112 TUCKER JR, JOSEPH ROBBINS INFORMATION MEETING 1118112 

TURNER, VAUGHN A INFORMATION MEETING 3126113 TURNER, VAUGHN A INFORMATION MEETING 311113 TURNER, VAUGHN A INFORMATION MEETING 2120113 TURNER, VAUGHN A INFORMATION MEETING 2113113 TURNER, VAUGHN A INFORMATION MEETING 218113 TURNER, VAUGHN A INFORMATION MEETING 215113 

TURNER, VAUGHN A INFORMATION MEETING 1215112 
· I Arrival I 

Traveler Name Tnp Purpose Code Date I 

TURNER, VAUGHN A INFORMATION MEETING 11/29/12 

TURNER, VAUGHN A INFORMATION MEETING 11/27/12 

TURNER, VAUGHN A INFORMATION MEETING 11/9112 

TURNER, VAUGHN A INFORMATION MEETING 11/4/12 

TURNER, VAUGHN A INFORMATION MEETING 1112112 TURNER, VAUGHN A INFORMATION MEETING 10131/12 TURNER, VAUGHN A TRAINING ATTENDANCE 9/23/12 TURNER, VAUGHN A SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 9/4112 

TURNER, VAUGHN A SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 8/29/12 TURNER, VAUGHN A SITE VISIT 8/16/12 

TURNER, VAUGHN A SITE VISIT 7/16/12 TURNER, VAUGHN A SITE VISIT 5/13/12 TURNER, VAUGHN A INFORMATION MEETING 4/26/12 TURNER, VAUGHN A INFORMATION MEETING 2/28/12 TURNER, VAUGHN A INFORMATION MEETING 2/27/12 TURNER, VAUGHN A INFORMATION MEETING 2/16/12 TURNER, VAUGHN A INFORMATION MEETING 12/12/11 

TURNER, VAUGHN A OTHER TRAVEL 11/8/11 

TURNER, VAUGHN A OTHER TRAVEL 10/24/11 TURNER, VAUGHN A OTHER TRAVEL 10/3/11 

VAN LAAK, JAMES EARL INFORMATION MEETING 3/10/13 VAN LAAK, JAMES EARL INFORMATION MEETING 2126113 VAN LAAK, JAMES EARL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2/5113 

VAN LAAK, JAMES EARL INFORMATION MEETING 1/27/13 VAN LAAK, JAMES EARL INFORMATION MEETING 1/17/13 VAN LAAK, JAMES EARL INFORMATION MEETING 12/6/12 VAN LAAK, JAMES EARL INFORMATION MEETING 12/4/12 VAN LAAK, JAMES EARL INFORMATION MEETING 12/3/12 VAN LAAK, JAMES EARL CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/16/12 VAN LAAK, JAMES EARL INFORMATION MEETING 9/19/12 VAN LAAK, JAMES EARL INFORMATION MEETING 5/22/12 VAN LAAK, JAMES EARL INFORMATION MEETING 4/26/12 VAN LAAK, JAMES EARL TRAINING ATTENDANCE 3/15/12 VAN LAAK, JAMES EARL TRAINING ATTENDANCE 3/12/12 

VAN LAAK, JAMES EARL INFORMATION MEETING 1/17112 VAN LAAK, JAMES EARL INFORMATION MEETING 12/8/11 VEATCH, DAWN H CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 12/1/12 VEATCH, DAWN H OTHER TRAVEL 11/11/12 

VEATCH, DAWN H INFORMATION MEETING 10/20/12 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code 

VEATCH, DAWN H INFORMATION MEETING 1018112 

VEATCH, DAWN H INFORMATION MEETING 1011112 VEATCH, DAWN H INFORMATION MEETING 8114112 VEATCH, DAWN H INFORMATION MEETING 816112 VEATCH, DAWN H INFORMATION MEETING 7118112 VEATCH, DAWN H INFORMATION MEETING 7115112 VEATCH, DAWN H INFORMATION MEETING 6119112 

VEATCH, DAWN H INFORMATION MEETING 5121112 VEATCH, DAWN H INFORMATION MEETING 5117112 VEATCH, DAWN H INFORMATION MEETING 4126112 VEATCH, DAWN H INFORMATION MEETING 3113112 

VEATCH, DAWN H INFORMATION MEETING 316112 VEATCH, DAWN H CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 11114111 VEATCH, DAWN H CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1118111 VEATCH, DAWN H SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10117111 VERNON, KATHRYN M INFORMATION MEETING 2126113 VERNON, KATHRYN M INFORMATION MEETING 2111113 

VERNON, KATHRYN M SITE VISIT 12113112 

VERNON, KATHRYN M SITE VISIT 12111112 

VERNON, KATHRYN M INFORMATION MEETING 11125112 VERNON, KATHRYN M OTHER TRAVEL 1115112 

VERNON, KATHRYN M OTHER TRAVEL 9110112 

VERNON, KATHRYN M OTHER TRAVEL 916112 VERNON, KATHRYN M INFORMATION MEETING 7110112 

VERNON, KATHRYN M OTHER TRAVEL 518112 VERNON, KATHRYN M INFORMATION MEETING 4124112 VERNON, KATHRYN M SITE VISIT 4120112 VERNON, KATHRYN M INFORMATION MEETING 419112 VERNON, KATHRYN M CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2129112 VERNON, KATHRYN M INFORMATION MEETING 2113112 VERNON, KATHRYN M SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 2/6112 VERNON, KATHRYN M SITE VISIT 1118112 VIOLA, JAMES ANGELO CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 313113 VIOLA, JAMES ANGELO CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2119113 

VIOLA, JAMES ANGELO CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1123113 VIOLA, JAMES ANGELO INFORMATION MEETING 10110112 VIOLA, JAMES ANGELO SITE VISIT 9117112 VIOLA, JAMES ANGELO CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 8112112 VIOLA, JAMES ANGELO CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 7116112 
Traveler Name I Trip Purpose Code i I 

VIOLA, JAMES ANGELO CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/11/12 VIOLA, JAMES ANGELO SITE VISIT 5/1112 VIOLA, JAMES ANGELO SITE VISIT 4/30/12 

VIOLA, JAMES ANGELO SITE VISIT 3/11/12 VIOLA, JAMES ANGELO SITE VISIT 2/15/12 VIOLA, JAMES ANGELO SITE VISIT 2/10/12 VIOLA, JAMES ANGELO OTHER TRAVEL 1/30/12 VIOLA, JAMES ANGELO SITE VISIT 12/15/11 VIOLA, JAMES ANGELO SITE VISIT 12/14111 VIOLA, JAMES ANGELO SITE VISIT 1117111 VIOLA, JAMES ANGELO SITE VISIT 10/13/11 VOSS, WILLIAM T TRAINING ATTENDANCE 12/3/12 

VOSS, WILLIAM T TRAINING ATTENDANCE 9/10/12 VOSS, WILLIAM T TRAINING ATTENDANCE 6/18/12 VOSS, WILLIAM T TRAINING ATTENDANCE 4/8112 

WALEN, DAVID BRENT INFORMATION MEETING 3/19/13 WALEN, DAVID BRENT INFORMATION MEETING 2/25/13 WALEN, DAVID BRENT INFORMATION MEETING 1/28/13 

WALEN, DAVID BRENT INFORMATION MEETING 1/14/13 WALEN, DAVID BRENT INFORMATION MEETING 11/6/12 WALEN, DAVID BRENT INFORMATION MEETING 9/24/12 WALEN, DAVID BRENT INFORMATION MEETING 9/17/12 WALEN, DAVID BRENT INFORMATION MEETING 9/11/12 WALEN, DAVID BRENT INFORMATION MEETING 8/2/12 WALEN, DAVID BRENT INFORMATION MEETING 8/1/12 WALEN, DAVID BRENT INFORMATION MEETING 7/24/12 

WALEN, DAVID BRENT CERTIFICATE MANAGEMENT 6/29/12 WALEN, DAVID BRENT CERTIFICATE MANAGEMENT 6/26/12 WALEN, DAVID BRENT INFORMATION MEETING 6/4/12 WALEN, DAVID BRENT INFORMATION MEETING 5/21/12 WALEN, DAVID BRENT INFORMATION MEETING 4/16/12 WALEN, DAVID BRENT INFORMATION MEETING 3/19/12 

WALEN, DAVID BRENT INFORMATION MEETING 3/13/12 

WALEN, DAVID BRENT INFORMATION MEETING 1/23112 WARREN, MARC L CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 12/18/12 WARREN, MARC L CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/24/12 WARREN, MARC L INFORMATION MEETING 8/22112 WARREN, MARC L INFORMATION MEETING 8/20/12 WARREN, MARC L SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/12112 
Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code i I 

WARREN, MARC L SITE VISIT 6/5/12 

WARREN, MARC L TRAINING ATTENDANCE 4126112 

WARREN, MARC L SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 11/6/11 WARREN, MARC L SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10/16111 WARREN, MARC L SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10115/11 WASSMER, VICTORIA B SITE VISIT 1116113 WASSMER, VICTORIA B SITE VISIT 12110112 

WASSMER, VICTORIA B SITE VISIT 10/23/12 WASSMER, VICTORIA B SITE VISIT 10/21112 WASSMER, VICTORIA B SITE VISIT 8/21/12 WASSMER, VICTORIA B SITE VISIT 6126/12 

WASSMER, VICTORIA B SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/20112 

WASSMER, VICTORIA B SITE VISIT 515112 WASSMER, VICTORIA B OTHER TRAVEL 4/24/12 

WASSMER, VICTORIA B CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 3/26112 WASSMER, VICTORIA B SITE VISIT 3/13/12 WASSMER, VICTORIA B INFORMATION MEETING 2/13/12 WASSMER, VICTORIA B SITE VISIT 1215111 WEINGART, DAVID H CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 2/10/13 WEINGART, DAVID H INFORMATION MEETING 1/30113 WEINGART, DAVID H SITE VISIT 12111112 WEINGART, DAVID H SITE VISIT 11120112 WEINGART, DAVID H SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10111112 

WEINGART, DAVID H SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10110/12 WEINGART, DAVID H CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 7/25112 WEINGART, DAVID H SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 6/11/12 WEINGART, DAVID H INFORMATION MEETING 5/22/12 WEINGART, DAVID H OTHER TRAVEL 5/9/12 WEINGART, DAVID H INFORMATION MEETING 4/26/12 WEINGART, DAVID H OTHER TRAVEL 2/20112 WEINGART, DAVID H INFORMATION MEETING 211112 WEINGART, DAVID H OTHER TRAVEL 11/11111 WEINGART, DAVID H OTHER TRAVEL 10119111 WEINGART, DAVID H CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1019111 

WHITE, JAMES ROBERT INFORMATION MEETING 3/18/13 

WHITE, JAMES ROBERT INFORMATION MEETING 2/24/13 

WHITE, JAMES ROBERT INFORMATION MEETING 11125/12 WHITE, JAMES ROBERT INFORMATION MEETING 11/11112 WHITE, JAMES ROBERT INFORMATION MEETING 10/4112 
Traveler Name i Trip Purpose Code 

WHITE, JAMES ROBERT CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/15/12 WHITE, JAMES ROBERT INFORMATION MEETING 9/7/12 WHITE, JAMES ROBERT INFORMATION MEETING 8/26/12 WHITE, JAMES ROBERT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 8/19/12 WHITE, JAMES ROBERT CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 7/14112 WHITE, JAMES ROBERT CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6/25112 WHITE, JAMES ROBERT INFORMATION MEETING 5/6112 

WHITE, JAMES ROBERT INFORMATION MEETING 4/22112 WHITE, JAMES ROBERT INFORMATION MEETING 3/13112 WHITE, JAMES ROBERT INFORMATION MEETING 317112 WHITE, JAMES ROBERT INFORMATION MEETING 2/24/12 WHITE, JAMES ROBERT INFORMATION MEETING 2/17/12 WHITE, JAMES ROBERT SITE VISIT 1/8/12 WHITE, JAMES ROBERT INFORMATION MEETING 11/27/11 

WHITE, JAMES ROBERT CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/30111 

WHITE, JAMES ROBERT CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/15111 

WHITE, JAMES ROBERT CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/8/11 WHITE, JAMES ROBERT CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10/6/11 WHITLEY, PAMELA DENISE INFORMATION MEETING 2/5/13 WHITLEY, PAMELA DENISE SITE VISIT 1/29/13 WHITLEY, PAMELA DENISE INFORMATION MEETING 11/13/12 WHITLEY, PAMELA DENISE INFORMATION MEETING 9/9/12 WHITLEY, PAMELA DENISE SITE VISIT 8/29/12 

WHITLEY, PAMELA DENISE SITE VISIT 8/14/12 

WHITLEY, PAMELA DENISE INFORMATION MEETING 7/23/12 WHITLEY, PAMELA DENISE TRAINING ATTENDANCE 6/17/12 WHITLEY, PAMELA DENISE INFORMATION MEETING 4/26/12 WHITLEY, PAMELA DENISE INFORMATION MEETING 11/16/11 WILLIAMS, JAMES HENRY CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 1213112 WILLIAMS, JAMES HENRY INFORMATION MEETING 11114/12 WILLIAMS, JAMES HENRY CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 9/24/12 WILLIAMS, JAMES HENRY INFORMATION MEETING 9/19/12 WILLIAMS, JAMES HENRY INFORMATION MEETING 9/18/12 WILLIAMS, JAMES HENRY CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 8/15/12 WILLIAMS, JAMES HENRY CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 8/6112 WILLIAMS, JAMES HENRY INFORMATION MEETING 6118112 WILLIAMS, JAMES HENRY CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 5121112 WILLIAMS, JAMES HENRY INFORMATION MEETING 5114112 WILLIAMS, JAMES HENRY INFORMATION MEETING 511/12 
· ' Arrival , 

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code I Date : 

WILLIAMS, JAMES HENRY INFORMATION MEETING 4/25/12 WILLIAMS, JAMES HENRY SITE VISIT 4/15/12 WILLIAMS, JAMES HENRY INFORMATION MEETING 3/6/12 WILLIAMS, JAMES HENRY INFORMATION MEETING 2121/12 

WILLIAMS, JAMES HENRY TRAINING ATTENDANCE 1/30/12 

WILLIAMS, JAMES HENRY INFORMATION MEETING 1/24112 

WILLIAMS, JAMES HENRY INFORMATION MEETING 10/20/11 

WILLIAMS, JAMES HENRY CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 10115111 WILLIAMS, JAMES HENRY INFORMATION MEETING 10/6/11 WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 2/20/13 WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 2/4/13 WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 12/10/12 WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 12/5112 WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 12/3/12 

WINSTON, THOMAS A SITE VISIT 11/14/12 WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 10/15/12 WINSTON, THOMAS A SITE VISIT 10/1/12 WINSTON, THOMAS A SITE VISIT 9/24/12 WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 9/20/12 WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 8/27/12 WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 8/21/12 WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 8/1112 WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 7/10/12 

WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 6/19/12 WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 5/9/12 

WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 5/1112 WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 4/24/12 WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 3/26/12 WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 3/22/12 WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 3/5112 

WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 2121/12 

WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 2/9/12 WINSTON, THOMAS A TRAINING ATTENDANCE 1/23/12 

WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 1/8112 

WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 12/5/11 WINSTON, THOMAS A SITE VISIT 11/15/11 WINSTON, THOMAS A SITE VISIT 11/9/11 WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 10/24/11 

WINSTON, THOMAS A INFORMATION MEETING 10/17/11 
Traveler Name ! Trip Purpose Code _:: 

WITHY COMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 12114112 WITHY COMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES TRAINING ATTENDANCE 11126112 WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 11113112 WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 10115112 WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 1015112 WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 9130112 

WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 9126112 

WITHY COMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 9118112 WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 9118112 WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 9110112 

WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 8128112 WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 8124112 WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 8123112 WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 7124112 WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 7119112 

WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 7116112 

WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 718112 WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 6129112 WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 5115112 WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 5114112 WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 512112 WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 4124112 

WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 4123112 

WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 419112 WITHY COMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 3128112 WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 3119112 WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 3115112 WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 3111112 

WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 317112 WITHY COMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 2127112 WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 2113112 

WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 1125112 WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 1211111 WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 1118111 

WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES INFORMATION MEETING 10124111 WITHYCOMBE, WILLIAM CHARLES SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 10116111 WONG, ALICE A CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 6125112 WONG, ALICE A INFORMATION MEETING 4126112 

WONG,ALlCEA CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 4110112 
· Arrival [ 

Traveler Name Trip Purpose Code Date I De

WONG, ALICE A 

ZAMKA, GEORGE DAVID 

ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZEN KOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZEN KOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN ZEN KOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZEN KOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZEN KOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZEN KOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZEN KOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZEN KOVICH , MICHAEL JOHN ZENKOVICH, MICHAELJOHN 

ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZENKOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

ZEN KOVICH, MICHAEL JOHN 

SITE VISIT 

OTHER TRAVEL 

INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING 

CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 

INFORMATION MEETING 

INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING 

OTHER TRAVEL 

CERTIFICATE MANAGEMENT 

INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING 

CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 

INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING 

CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 

INFORMATION MEETING 

OTHER TRAVEL OTHER TRAVEL 

INFORMATION MEETING 

CONFERENCE ATTENDANCE 

INFORMATION MEETING 

SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 

SITE VISIT 

SITE VISIT 

INFORMATION MEETING 

SITE VISIT SITE VISIT SPEECH OR PRESENTATION 

INFORMATION MEETING INFORMATION MEETING 

INFORMATION MEETING 

12/6/11 

1/17113 

3/24/13 3/10/13 

2/19113 

2/3/13 

1/22/13 

1/2/13 

12/9/12 

12/5112 

11/26/12 

11/4112 

10/28112 

10/14/12 

9/24/12 

8/26/12 8/13/12 

7/23/12 

5/15/12 

5/1/12 

4/24/12 

3/22/12 3/13/12 

3/4112 

2/21/12 

1/17/12 

1/8/12 1/3/12 

12/12/11 

12/4111 

11/2/11 

10/13/11 

10/12/11 

1017111 

10/5111 

10/4/11 

10/3/11 

OK

WAWAWAWAWA

WAWAWAWAWA

WAWAWA

JAC

WA

DERE

WA

KA

SH

WA

LAW

WAWAWAWA

OK

LIT

WA

WA

HO

CH

MO

OR

AT

WA
411

Latham-37 

AHR 

ESTIMATES FOR SERVICES, CONFERENCES, TRAVEL AND 

BONUSES 

QUESTION: For all of FY 2012, and for the first two quarters of FY 2013, 

please provide the amounts and purposes for Senior Executive 

Service bonuses. 

ANSWER: 

FAA executives do not receive Senior Executive Service bonuses. Instead, they 

are eligible for an incentive payment based on individual Short-Term Incentive 

(STI) plans, which assign responsibility for various combinations of corporate 

goals and line of business performance goals. 

Decisions on FY 2012 STI payouts were deferred as a result of the sequester. No 

STI payments were made during FY 2012 or for the first two quarters of FY 2013. 
412

Air Traffic Controller Compensation 

Latham-38 

AFN 

QUESTION: For Fiscal Year 2012, please provide: Average compensation, 

including overtime and bonuses, for all air traffic controllers. 

ANSWER: 

In FY 2012, the average cash compensation for all operational air traffic 

controllers, including developmental controllers, was approximately $135,000. 

This figure includes salary plus overtime pay, shift differential pay, and other 

premium pay elements, but excludes the cost of benefits, such as health care and 

pension contributions. 
413

Air Traffic Controller Compensation 

Latham-39 

AFN 

QUESTION: For Fiscal Year 2012, please provide: Average compensation, 

including overtime and bonuses, for the 100 highest 

compensated air traffic controllers. 

ANSWER: 

In FY 2012, the average cash compensation for the 100 highest compensated air 

traffic controllers was approximately $255,500. 

This figure includes salary plus overtime pay, shift differential pay, and other 

premium pay elements, but excludes the cost of benefits, such as health care and 

pension contributions. 
414

Air Traffic Controller Compensation 

Latham-40 

AFN 

QUESTION: For Fiscal Year 2012, please provide: Average compensation, 

including overtime and bonuses, for the 1,000 highest 

compensated air traffic controllers. 

ANSWER: 

In FY 2012, the average cash compensation for the 1,000 highest compensated air 

traffic controllers was approximately $214,200. 

This figure includes salary plus overtime pay, shift differential pay, and other 

premium pay elements, but excludes the cost of benefits, such as health care and 

pension contributions. 
415

Air Traffic Controller Compensation 

Latham-41 

AFN 

QUESTION: For Fiscal Year 2012, please provide: Average compensation, 

including overtime and bonuses, for the 5,000 highest 

compensated air traffic controllers. 

ANSWER: 

In FY 2012, the average cash compensation for the 5,000 highest compensated air 

traffic controllers was approximately $177,100. 

This figure includes salary plus overtime pay, shift differential pay, and other 

premium pay elements, but excludes the cost of benefits, such as health care and 

pension contributions. 
416

Air Traffic Controller Compensation 

Latham-42 

AFN 

QUESTION: For Fiscal Year 2012, and for the first two quarters of 

FY 2013, please provide amounts of overtime 

compensation by air traffic control facility. 

ANSWER: 

Please see summary below for total overtime costs for operational air traffic 

controllers for FY 2012 through the second quarter ofFY 2013: 

FY 2013: 

Facility 10 Facility Name FY 2012 Q1+02 Grand Total 

All Anchorage TRACON $83,261 $22,933 $106,193 

A80 Atlanta TRACON $1,432,203 $638,873 $2,071,076 

A90 Boston TRACON $23,308 $5,053 $28,360 

ABE Allentown Tower $36,548 $10,896 $47,444 

ABI Abilene Tower $36,643 $16,205 $52,848 

ABQ Albuquerque Tower $31,559 $33,491 $65,050 

ACK Nantucket Tower $1,838 $68 $1,907 

ACT Waco Tower $68,332 $20,436 $88,768 

ACY Atlantic City Tower $62,278 $8,338 $70,616 

A05 Addison Tower $3,864 $3,064 $6,929 

AOW Andrews Tower $52,756 $30,730 $83,486 

AFW Alliance Tower $11,074 $2,903 $13,977 

AGC Allegheny Tower $81,857 $17,177 $99,034 

AG5 Augusta Tower $21,600 $5,472 $27,072 

ALB Albany Tower $29,523 $9,368 $38,891 

ALO Waterloo Tower $4,584 $3,148 $7,732 

AMA Amarillo Tower $153,922 $49,833 $203,755 

ANC Anchorage Tower $89,127 $39,859 $128,986 

APA Centennial Tower $50,854 $23,714 $74,568 

APC Napa Tower $7,381 $4,238 $11,619 

ARB Ann Arbor Tower $3,915 $576 $4,491 

ARR Aurora Tower $103 $608 $711 

A5E Aspen Tower $6,460 $13,072 $19,531 

ATL Atlanta Tower $436,429 $176,372 $612,801 

AU5 Austin Tower $326,199 $99,719 $425,918 
417

FY 2013: 

Facility 10 Facility Name FY 2012 Q1+Q2 Grand Total 

AVL Asheville Tower $12,337 $8,010 $20,346 

AVP Wilkes-Barre Tower $29,770 $6,683 $36,453 

AZO Kalamazoo Tower $8,543 $3,719 $12,262 

BOl Bradley Tower $20,075 $23,097 $43,173 

BED Hanscom Tower $3,049 $2,649 $5,698 

BFI Boeing Tower $8,144 $1,753 $9,898 

BFL Bakersfield Tower $6,399 $7,650 $14,049 

BGM Binghamton Tower $36,029 $11,160 $47,189 

BGR Bangor Tower $178,903 $60,671 $239,575 

BHM Birmingham Tower $27,788 $20,178 $47,966 

Bil Billings Tower $76,953 $11,899 $88,853 

BIS Bismarck Tower $7,510 $4,445 $11,955 

BJC Broomfield Tower $3,970 $5,248 $9,217 

BNA Nashville Tower $19,765 $11,946 $31,711 

BOI BOISE Tower $37,862 $11,684 $49,546 

B05 Boston Tower $23,963 $25,977 $49,941 

BPT Beaumont Tower $910 $666 $1,576 

BTR Baton Rouge Tower $87,188 $62,334 $149,522 

BTV Burlington Tower $82,775 $63,449 $146,224 

BUF Buffalo Tower $14,542 $3,476 $18,017 

BUR Burbank Tower $115,496 $55,916 $171,412 

BWI Baltimore Tower $36,658 $17,011 $53,669 

C90 Chicago TRACON $2,320,774 $1,207,305 $3,528,079 

CAE Columbia Tower $16,714 $6,243 $22,957 

CAK Akron-Canton Tower $31,254 $5,855 $37,108 

CCR Concord Tower $7,322 $6,937 $14,258 

COW Caldwell Tower $19,794 $7,014 $26,808 

CHA Chatanooga Tower $26,768 $9,257 $36,026 

CHS Charleston Tower $12,779 $5,297 $18,076 

CIO Cedar Rapids Tower $566 $381 $947 

CKB Clarksburg Tower $12,085 $12,188 $24,273 

ClE Cleveland Tower $82,1641 $35,068 $117,232 

ClT Charlotte Tower $128,846 $77,563 $206,409 

CMA Camarillo Tower $21,936 $15,893 $37,830 

CMH Columbus Tower $53,121 $22,011 $75,132 

CMI Champaign Tower $4,514 $567 $5,081 

CNO Chino Tower $9,490 $9,653 $19,143 

COS Colorado Springs Tower $13,846 $10,932 $24,779 

CPR Casper Tower $10,156 $6,091 $16,248 

CPS S1. Louis Downtown Tower $2,360 $1,272 $3,632 
418

FY 2013: 

Facility ID Facility Name FY2012 Q1+Q2 Grand Total 

CRP Corpus Christi Tower $373,410 $168,734 $542,145 

CRQ Palomar Tower $737 $764 $1,501 

CRW Charleston Tower $31,804 $13,585 $45,388 

CSG Columbus Tower $6,073 $4,980 $11,053 

CVG Cincinnati Tower $17,634 $5,069 $22,702 

001 Denver TRACON $434,687 $107,506 $542,193 

010 Dallas Ft Worth TRACON $478,672 $407,550 $886,221 

D21 Detroit TRACON $251,753 $140,081 $391,835 

DAB Daytona Beach Tower $505,773 $177,915 $683,688 

OAL Dallas Love Tower $65,959 $32,188 $98,146 

DAY Dayton Tower $35,916 $4,896 $40,812 

DCA Washington National Tower $17,198t= $18,954 $36,152 

DEN Denver Tower $94,614 $53,872 $148,486 

OFW Dallas/Forth Worth Tower $152,583 $104,083 $256,665 

OLH Duluth Tower $7,778 $2,540 $10,318 

DPA Dupage Tower $149,864 $39,398 $189,262 

DSM Des Moines Tower $5,791 $4,183 $9,974 

DTW Detroit Tower $98,576 $98,136 $196,712 

DVT Deer Valley Tower $11,119 $13,091 $24,209 

OWH Hooks Tower $2,273 $1,183 $3,456 

E10 High Desert TRACON $72,630 $70,626 $143,256 

ELM Elmira Tower $65,654 $51,061 $116,715 

ELP EI Paso Tower $137,916 $42,305 $180,220 

EMT EI Monte Tower $6,719 $9,287 $16,006 

ERI Erie Tower $13,531 $3,489 $17,020 

EUG Eugene Tower $120,579 $51,197 $171,776 

EW Evansville Tower $11,856 $14,333 $26,189 

EWR Newark Tower $156,441 $58,926 $215,367 

Fll Central Florida TRACON $163,758 $110,276 $274,034 

FAI Fairbanks Tower $179,310 $22,165 $201,476 

FAR Fargo Tower $15,049 $2,135 $17,184 

FAT Fresno Tower $41,269 $35,420 $76,689 

FAY Fayetteville Tower $49,522 $32,315 $81,837 

FCM Flying Cloud Tower $4,149 $1,388 $5,537 

FFZ Falcon Tower $14,038 $16,588 $30,627 

Fll Fort Lauderdale Tower $62,005 $55,815 $117,820 

FLO Florence Tower $7,515 $2,116 $9631 

FNT Flint Tower $25,264 $9,522 $34,787 

FPR St Lucie Tower $8,116 $3,283 $11,399 

FRG Farmingdale Tower $21,541 $7,628 $29,170 
419

FY 2013: 

Facility 10 Facility Name FY 2012 Q1+Q2 Grand Total 

FSO Sioux Falls Tower $14,428 $17,956 $32,384 

FSM Fort Smith Tower $17,115 $6 $23,817 

FTW Meacham Tower $18,352 $9,926 $28,278 

FWA Fort Wayne Tower $14,320 $3,281 $17,601 

FXE Fort Lauderdale Executive Tower $70,975 $20,789 $91,764 

GCN Grand Canyon Tower $4,649 $3,603 $8,253 

GEG Spokane Tower $166,404 $63,422 $229,826 

GFK Grand Forks Tower $10,485 $5,066 $15,551 

GGG Longview Tower $47,330 $14,887 $62,217 

GPT Gulfport Tower $96,255 $21,750 $118,005 

GRB Green Bay Tower $24,108 $4,748 $28,856 

GRR Grand Rapids Tower $13,321 $1,543 $14,864 

GSO Greensboro Tower $77,020 $11,740 $88,760 

GSP Greer Tower $4,264 $1,792 $6,056 

I GTF Great Falls Tower $98,921 $53,473 $152,394 , 

HCF Honolulu Control Facility $810,488 $236,101 $1,046,588 

HEF Manassas Tower $18,848 $5,290 $24,137 

HIO Hillsboro Tower $25,000 $4,066 $29,066 

HLN Helena Tower $100,389 $26,470 $126,860 

HOU Hobby Tower $50,916 $17,394 $68,310 

HPN Westchester Tower $21,612 $7,229 $28,841 

HSV Huntsville Tower $110,082 $53,813 $163,895 

HTS Huntington Tower $34,534 $9,599 $44,133 

HUF Terre Haute /Hulman ATCT/TRACON $27,053 $10,614 $37,667 

HWO Hayward Tower $14,954 $4,127 $19,081 

190 Houston TRACON $1,579,814 $674,357 $2,254,171 

lAD Dulles Tower $143,075 $23,572 $166,647 

IAH Houston Intercontinental ATC Tower $254,569 $32,384 $286,953 

ICT Wichita Tower $32,322 $13,325 $45,647 

ILG Wilmington Tower $26,563 $9,739 $36,302 

ILM Wilmington Tower $2,944 $3,925 $6,869 

INO Indianapolis Tower $74,440 $14,842 $89,282 

ISP Islip Tower $34,330 $12,014 $46,344 

ITO Hilo Tower $27,286 $6,070 $33,357 

JAN Jackson Tower $63,334 $48,405 $111,739 

JAX Jacksonville Tower $650,336 $243,586 $893,921 

JFK Kennedy Tower $104,009 $39,118 $143,127 

JNU Juneau Tower $5,768 $5,624 $11,392 

K90 CapeTRACON $44,626 $2 $44,628 

L30 Las Vegas TRACON $258,817 $98,138 $356,955 
420

FY2013: 

Facility 10 Facility Name FY2012 Q1+Q2 Grand Total 

LAF Lafayette Tower $702 $10 $712 

LAN Lansing Tower $39,959 $28,237 $68,196 

LAS Las Vegas Tower $140,852 $100,784 $241,636 

LAX Los Angeles Tower $518,442 $457,690 $976,131 

LBB Lubbock Tower $78,044 $20,526 $98,570 

LCH Lake Charles Tower $1,413 $898 $2,311 

LEX Lexington Tower $36,893 $4,950 $41,843 

LFT Lafayette Tower $14,277 $21,538 $35,815 

LGA La Guardia Tower $44,752 $19,194 $63,947 

LGB Long Beach Tower $70,292 $14,033 $84,325 

LIT little Rock Tower $18,034 $7,301 $25,335 

lNK Lincoln Tower $2,073 $3,123 $S,196 

lOU Bowman Tower $2,996 $115 $3,112 

lVK livermore Tower $46,869 $28,733 $75,602 

M03 Memphis TRACON $145,045 $19,493 $164,538 

M98 Minneapolis TRACON $9,093 $815 $9,908 

MAF Midland Tower $243,173 $82,743 $325,915 

MBS Saginaw Tower $30,296 $17,907 $48,202 

MCI Kansas City Tower $14,408 $4,882 $19,291 

MCO Orlando Tower $98,553 $63,800 $162,353 

MOT Harrisburg Inti Tower $57,245 $19,751 $76,996 

MOW Midway Tower $57,431 $28,084 $85,515 

MEM Memphis Tower $196,860 $82,737 $279,597 

MFO Mansfield Tower $107,250 $14,291 $121,541 

MGM Montgomery Tower $31,814 $16,958 $48,772 

MHT Manchester Tower $19,929 $2,202 $22,131 

MIA Miami Tower $90,415 $66,627 $157,042 

MIC Crystal Tower $1,794 $146 $1,940 

MKC Weeler Downtown Tower $74,471 $3,024 $77,494 

MKE Milwaukee Tower $720,950 $425,308 $1,146,258 

MKG Muskegon Tower $9,999 $3,895 $13,895 

MLI Quad City Tower $4,808 $29,121 $33,929 

MLU Monroe Tower $82,516 $10,729 $93,246 

MMU Morristown Tower $9,278 $9,007 $18,285 

MOB Mobile Tower $5,978 $5,656 $11,634 

MRI Merrill Tower $31,659 $9,851 $41,511 

MRY Monterey Tower $52,206 $14,679 $66,884 

MSN Madison Tower $25,651 $10,737 $36,388 

MSP Minneapolis Tower $24,143 $5,392 $29,535 

MSY New Orleans Tower $62,504 $50,641 $113,145 
421

FY 2013: 

Facility ID Facility Name FY2012 Q1+Q2 Grand Total 

MWH Grant County Tower $64,323 $11,810 $76,133 

MYF Montgomery Tower $11,712 $6,757 $18,469 

MYR Myrtle Beach Tower $500 $2,917 $3,417 

N90 New York TRACON $4,901,690 $2,862,738 $7,764,428 

NCT Northern California TRACON $1,062,027 $476,689 $1,538,716 

NEW Lakefront Tower $7,800 $7,717 $15,517 

NMM Meridian TRACON $28,291 $17,877 $46,168 

OAK Oakland Tower $235,821 $99,090 $334,910 

OGG MauiTower $15,789 $6,711 $22,501 

OKC Oklahoma City Tower $107,590 $23,047 $130,637 

OMA Eppley Tower $13,688 $1,894 $15,582 

ONT Ontario Tower $33,177 $25,517 $58,693 

ORO Chicago O'Hare Tower $520,316 $89,890 $610,206 

ORF Norfolk Tower $60,810 $48,771 $109,581 

ORL Orlando Executive, Fl ATCTTower $7,619 $1,125 $8,744 

P31 Pensacola TRACON $257,965 $128,145 $386,110 

P50 Phoenix TRACON $160,028 $69,239 $229,266 

P80 Portland TRACON $121,505 $67,744 $189,249 

PAE Paine Tower $11,631 $8,151 $19,782 

PAO Palo Alto Tower $19,717 $62,088 

PSI Palm Beach Tower $71,171 $27,647 $98,818 

PCT Potomac TRACON $943,296 $385,413 $1,328,709 

POK DeKalb - Peachtree Tower $49,915 $11,986 $61,901 

POX Portland Tower $203,924 $124,925 $328,849 

PHF Patrick Henry Tower $2,741 $204 $2,945 

PHL Philadelphia Tower $393,060 $92,202 $485,262 

PHX Phoenix Tower $90,311 $27,362 $117,673 

PIA Peoria Tower $13,638 $10,411 $24,049 

PIE 5t Petersburg Tower $1,654 $398 $2,052 

PIT FAA Pittsburgh ATC Tower $48,523 $14,226 $62,749 

PNE Northeast Philadelphia Tower $15,694 $15,345 $31,040 

PNS Pensacola Tower $6,702 $2,556 $9,257 

POC Brackett Tower $12,965 $8,808 $21,774 

POU Poughkeepsie Tower $9,329 $680 $10,010 

PRC Prescott Tower $215,960 $33,759 $249,719 

PSC Pasco Tower $18,941 $5,417 $24,358 

PSP Palm Springs Tower $19,721 $17,043 $36,764 

PTK Pontiac Tower $38,639 $8,952 $47,592 

PUS Pueblo Tower $9,686 $5,538 $15,224 

PVO Providence Tower $13,124 $252 $13,376 
422

FY 2013: 

Facility 10 Facility Name FY2012 Q1+Q2 Grand Total 

PWK Chicago Executive Tower $15,366 $8,722 $24,089 

PWM Portland Tower $37,426 $10,066 $47,493 

R90 Omaha TRACON $56,174 $8,721 $64,896 

ROG Reading Tower $10,655 $2,976 $13,631 

ROU Raleigh-Durham Tower $22,134 $8,003 $30,137 

RFO Rockford Tower $37,102 $29,523 $66,625 

RHV Reid-Hillview Tower $8,635 $1,764 $10,399 

RIC Richmond Tower $31,694 $47,309 $79,003 

RNO Reno Tower $30,268 $11,227 $41,495 

ROA Roanoke Tower $56,016 $28,428 $84,444 

ROC Rochester Tower $31,454 $17,825 $49,279 

ROW Roswell Tower $10,759 $5,403 $16,162 

RST Rochester Tower $10,635 $2,337 $12,973 

RSW Fort Myers Tower $66,502 $33,175 $99,677 

RVS Riverside Tower $12,792 $2,987 $15,779 

546 Seattle TRACON $358,236 $132,284 $490,520 

556 Salt lake City TRACON $272,525 $85,289 $357,814 

SAN San Diego Tower $37,385 $27,593 $64,978 

SAT San Antonio Tower $310,391 $115,975 $426,366 

SAV Savannah Tower $7,803 $3,383 $11,185 

SBA Santa Barbara Tower $105,858 $45,582 $151,440 

SBN South Bend Tower $83,250 $32,570 $115,819 

SCK Stockton Tower $7,486 $4,488 $11,974 

SCT Southern California TRACON $2,533,519 $1,341,480 $3,874,999 

SOF Standiford Tower $53,222 $7,403 $60,625 

SOL Scottsdale Tower $17,103 $12,113 $29,216 

SEA Seattle Tower $111,892 $23,966 $135,858 

SEE Gillespie Tower $5,113 $3,716 $8,829 

SFB Sanford Tower $25,266 $8,925 $34,191 

SFO San Francisco Tower $75,726 $14,907 $90,633 

5GF Springfield Tower $27,019 $8,655 $35,674 

SHV Shreveport Tower $92,961 $31,576 $124,537 

SJC San Jose Tower $55,261 $17,715 $72,977 

SJU San Juan Tower $59,076 $10,167 $69,243 

SLC Salt lake City Tower $60,665 $53,944 $114,609 

SMF Sacramento Tower $111,330 $43,508 $154,8:48 

SMO Santa Monica Tower $12,480 $4,294 $16,774 

SNA John Wayne Tower $197,240 $126,677 $:42:4,917 

SPI Springfield Tower $10,837 $6,908 $17,746 

SRQ Sarasota Tower $5,464 $4,890 $10,:453 
423

FY2013: 

Facility 10 Facility Name FY 2012 Ql+Q2 Grand Total 

STL St Louis Tower $35,450 $34,500 $69,950 

STP St Paul Tower $645 $0 $645 

STS Sonoma Tower $15,388 $8,600 $23,988 

STT St Thomas Tower $7,935 $2,136 $10,070 

SUS Spirit Tower $2,118 $3,426 $5,544 

SUX Sioux Gateway Tower $24,264 $16,273 $40,537 

SYR Syracuse Tower $95,687 $26,545 $122,232 

T52 RomeTRAeON $576 $1,628 $2,204 

T75 St Louis TRAeON $14,536 $4,216 $18,752 

TEB Teterboro Tower $8,756 $9,227 $17,982 

TLH Tallahassee Tower $6,821 $2,500 $9,321 

TMB Tamiami Tower $7,809 $4,035 $11,844 

TOA Torrance Tower $12,418 $4,135 $16,553 

TOL Toledo Tower $14,933 $8,364 $23,297 

TPA Tampa Tower $104,421 $71,490 $175,911 

TRI Tri-eities Tower $23,018 $10,693 $33,711 

TUL Tulsa Tower $41,614 $15,757 $57,371 

TUS Tucson Tower $61,611 $24,133 $85,744 

TVe Traverse eity Tower $1,289 $331 $1,620 

TWF Twin Falls Tower $10,585 $2,965 $13,550 

TYS Knoxville Tower $79,309 $83,535 $162,844 

U90 Tucson TRAeON $12,541 $21,772 $34,313 

VGT North Las Vegas Tower $5,060 $3,131 $8,191 

VNY Van Nuys Tower $9,283 $5,154 $14,437 

VRB Vero Beach Tower $22,934 $17,914 $40,848 

Y90 Yankee TRAeON $116,688 $81,204 $197,892 

YIP Willow Run Tower $45,861 $21,537 $67,398 

YNG Youngstown Tower $51,251 $32,766 $84,017 

ZAB Albuquerque ARTee $1,317,531 $276,053 $1,593,584 

ZAN Anchorage ARTCe $107,652 $43,708 $151,360 

ZAU ehicago ARTee $1,280,850 $263,743 $1,544,594 

ZBW Boston ARTCe $337,810 $178,497 $516,307 

zoe Washington ARTee $7,010,759 $2,702,479 $9,713,238 

ZOV Denver ARTCe $974,166 $178,070 $1,152,236 

ZFW Fort Worth ARTee $797,061 $741,907 $1,538,968 

ZHU Houston ARTCe $2,251,794 $652,681 $2,904,475 

ZIO Indianapolis ARTee $489,470 $347,178 $836,648 

ZJX Jacksonville ARTee $410,002 $232,024 $642,026 

ZKe Ka nsas eity ARTCe $682,688 $277,220 $959,908 

ZLA Los Angeles ARTee $3,523,070 $2,111,145 $5,634,215 
424

FY 2013: 

Facility 10 Facility Name FY 2012 Ql+Q2 Grand Total 

ZlC Salt lake City ARTCC $176,378 $83,769 $260,148 

ZMA MiamiARTCC $423,525 $125,894 $549,419 

ZME Memphis ARTCC $1,193,586 $1,291,493 $2,485,079 

ZMP Minneapolis ARTCC $406,274 $48,578 $454,852 

ZNY New York ARTCC $5,152,918 $3,364,313 $8,517,231 

ZOA Oakland ARTCC $2,192,345 $710,735 $2,903,080 

ZOB Cleveland ARTCC $710,548 $1,434,921 $2,145,469 

ZSE Seattle ARTCC $178,597 $68,860 $247,457 

ZSU San Juan ARTCC $176,312 $91,556 $267,869 

ZTl Atlanta ARTCC $1,047,792 $321,684 $1,369,475 

ZUA GuamARTCC $96,009 $56,567 $152,576 

Grand Total $65,693,237 $31,916,152 $97,609,389 
425

WORKERS COMPENSATION 

Latham-43 

AHR 

QUESTION: Please update the data below showing the number of FAA 

employees receiving workers' compensation payments, and 

associated costs, by providing data for each of fiscal years 2009 

through 2012. 

ANSWER: 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

FY Charged Cost Cases FECA 

Chargeback Year 

FY 2014 $94,904 2,427 2012* 

FY 2013 $90,623 2,591 2011 * 

FY20J2 $90,990 2,719 2010* 

FY 2011 $92,469 2,797 2009* 

FY20JO $90,949 2,911 2008* 

FY 2009 $87,046 2,898 2007* 

FY 2008 $85,761 2,874 2006 

FY 2007 $86,529 3,193 2005** 

FY 2006 $86,859 3,300 2004 

FY 2005 $88,320 3,521 2003 

FY 2004 $87,842 3,731 2002 

FY 2003 $86,365 3,706 2001 

FY 2002 $83,701 3,566 2000 

* Federal Employment Compensation Act (FECA) CB Year 2007 is July 1,2006 through 

June 30, 2007. 

* Federal Employment Compensation Act (FECA) CB Year 2008 is July 1,2007 through 

June 30, 2008. 
426

* Federal Employment Compensation Act (FECA) CB Year 2009 is July I, 2008 through 

June 30, 2009. 

* Federal Employment Compensation Act (FECA) CB Year 2010 is July 1,2009 through 

June 30, 2010. 

* Federal Employment Compensation Act (FECA) CB Year 2011 is July 1,2010 through 

June 30, 2011. 

* Federal Employment Compensation Act (FECA) CB Year 2012 is July 1,2011 through 

June 30, 2012. 

** Correction: The number of cases in CY05 is 3,193. This figure was stated incorrectly as 

3,931 in the 2008 Questions for the Record 
427

WORKERS COMPENSATION 

Latham-44 

AHR 

OUESTION: Please provide a breakdown of workers' compensation 

recipients by age shown on the table below. 

ANSWER: 

Chargeback Year 2012 

Age # Employees on All 

owep Series 2152 Other 

60-69 163 241 

70-79 339 139 

80 and above 203 112 
428

WORKERS COMPENSATION 

Latham-45 

AHR 

QUESTION: Please provide data below showing the average workers' 

compensation payment for employees in job series 2152, and 

comparing that to the government-wide average. 

ANSWER: 

Chargeback Year 2012 

Average Payment 

(in whole dollars) 

Job Series 2152 $66,613 

Other FAA $42,674 

Government-wide $25,693* 

*Data provided by Department of Labor 
429

WORKERS COMPENSATION 

Latham-46 

AHR 

QUESTION: Please update the table below showing chronological statistics 

on your workers' compensation program by providing data for 

calendar years 2007 through 2012. 

ANSWER: 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

CY Cost Change Percent I # Cases 

Case Percent 

Change Change Change 

*12 $94,904 4,281 4.7 2,427 (164) (6.3) 

*11 $90,623 (367) (.4) 2,591 (128) (4.7) 

*10 $90,990 (1,479) (1.6) 2,719 (78) (2.8) 

*09 $92,469 1,520 1.7 2,797 (114) (3.9) 

*08 $90,949 3,903 4.5 2,911 13 .4 

*07 $87,046 1,285 1.5 2,898 24 .8 

06 $85,761 (768) (0.9) 2,874 (319) (10.0) 

**05 $86,529 (330) (0.4) 3,193 (107) (3.2) 

04 $86,859 (1,461) (1.7) 3,300 (221) (6.3) 

03 $88,320 478 0.5 3,521 (210) (5.6) 

02 $87,842 1,477 1.7 3,731 25 0.7 

01 $86,365 2,664 3.2 3,706 140 3.9 

00 $83,701 (636) (0.8) 3,566 60 1.7 

*07 = FECA Charge Back Year 2007 is July 1,2006 through June 30, 2007. 

*08 FECA Charge Back Year 2007 is July 1,2007 through June 30, 2008. 
430

*09 = FECA Charge Back Year 2007 is July 1, 2008 through June 30, 2009. 

* 10 = FECA Charge Back Year 2007 is July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010. 

* 11 = FECA Charge Back Year 2007 is July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011. 

*12 FECA Charge Back Year 2007 is July 1,2011 through June 30, 2012. 

** 05 = Correction: The number of cases in CY05 is 3,193. This figure was stated 

incorrectly as 3,931 in the 2008 Questions for the Record 
431

Air Traffic Controller Compensation 

Latham-42 

AFN 

QUESTION: For Fiscal Year 2012, and for the first two quarters of 

FY 2013, please provide amounts of overtime 

compensation by air traffic control facility. 

ANSWER: 

Please see summary below for total overtime costs for operational air traffic 

controllers for FY 2012 through the second quarter ofFY 2013: 

FY2013: 

Facility 10 Facility Name FY2012 Q1+Q2 Grand Total 

All Anchorage TRACON $83,261 $22,933 $106,193 

A80 Atlanta TRACON $1,432,203 I $638,873 $2,071,076 

A90 Boston TRACON $23,308 $5,053 $28,360 

ABE Allentown Tower $36,548 $10,896 $47,444 

ABI Abilene Tower $36,643 $16,205 $52,848 

ABQ Albuquerque Tower $31,559 $33,491 $65,050 

ACK Nantucket Tower $1,838 $68 $1,907 

ACT Waco Tower $68,332 $20,436 $88,768 

ACY Atlantic City Tower $62,278 $8,338 $70,616 

ADS Addison Tower $3,864 $3,064 $6,929 

ADW Andrews Tower $52,756 $30,730 $83,486 

AFW Alliance Tower $11,074 $2,903 $13,977 

§t- Allegheny Tower $81,857 $17,177 $99,034 

AGS Augusta Tower $21,600 $5,472 $27,072 

Albany Tower $29,523 $9,368 $38,891 

AlO Waterloo Tower $4,584 $3,148 $7,732 

AMA Amarillo Tower $153,922 $49,833 $203,755 

ANC Anchorage Tower $89,127 $39,859 $128,986 

APA Centennial Tower $50,854 $23,714 $74,568 

APC Napa Tower $7,381 $4,238 $11,619 

ARB Ann Arbor Tower $3,915 $576 $4,491 

ARR Aurora Tower $103 $608 $711 

ASE Aspen Tower $6,460 $13,072 $19,531 

ATL Atlanta Tower $436,429 $176,372 $612,801 

AUS Austin Tower $326,199 $99,719 $425,918 
432

FY 2013: 

Facility 10 Facility Name FY2012 Q1+Q2 Grand Total 

AVl Asheville Tower $12,337 $8,010 $20,346 

AVP Wilkes-Barre Tower $29,770 $6,683 $36,453 

A20 Kalamazoo Tower $8,543 $3,719 $12,262 

BOl Bradley Tower $20,075 $23,097 $43,173 

BED Hanscom Tower $3,049 $2,649 $5,698 

BFI Boeing Tower $8,144 $1,753 $9,898 

BFl Bakersfield Tower $6,399 $7,650 $14,049 

BGM Binghamton Tower $36,029 $11,160 $47,189 

BGR Bangor Tower $178,903 $60,671 $239,575 

BHM Birmingham Tower $27,788 $20,178 $47,966 

Bil Billings Tower $76,953 $11,899 $88,853 

BIS Bismarck Tower $7,510 $4,445 $11,955 

BJC Broomfield Tower $3,970 $5,248 $9,217 

BNA Nashville Tower $19,765 $11,946 $31,711 

BOI BOISE Tower $37,862 $11,684 $49,546 

~~-- Boston Tower $23,963 $25,977 $49,941 --------

BPT Beaumont Tower $910 $666 $1,576 

BTR Baton Rouge Tower $87,188 $62,334 $149,522 

BTV Burlington Tower $82,775 $63,449 $146,224 

BUF Buffalo Tower $14,542 $3,476 $18,017 

BUR Burbank Tower $115,496 $55,916 $171,412 

BWI Baltimore Tower $36,658 $17,011 $53,669 

C90 Chicago TRACON $2,320,774 $1,207,305 $3,528,079 

CAE Columbia Tower $16,714 $6,243 $22,957 

CAK Akron-Canton Tower $31,254 $5,855 $37,108 

CCR Concord Tower $7,322 $6,937 $14,258 

COW Caldwell Tower $19,794 $7,014 $26,808 

CHA Chatanooga Tower $26,768 $9,257 $36,026 

CHS Charleston Tower $12,779 $5,297 $18,076 

CIO Cedar Rapids Tower $566 $381 $947 

CKB Clarksburg Tower $12,085 $12,188 $24,273 

ClE Cleveland Tower $82,164 $35,068 $117,232 

ClT Charlotte Tower $128,846 $77,563 $206,409 

CMA Camarillo Tower $21,936 $15,893 $37,830 

CMH Columbus Tower $53,121 $22,011 $75,132 

CMI Champaign Tower $4,514 $567 $5,081 

CNO Chino Tower $9,490 $9,653 $19,143 

C05 Colorado Springs Tower $13,846 $10,932 $24,779 

CPR Casper Tower $10,156 $6,091 $16,248 

CPS St_ louis Downtown Tower $2,360 $1,272 $3,632 
433

FY 2013: 

Facility ID Facility Name FY2012 Q1+Q2 Grand Total 

CRP Corpus Christi Tower $373,410 $168,734 $542,145 

CRQ Palomar Tower $737 $764 $1,501 

CRW Charleston Tower $31,804 $13,585 $45,388 

CSG Columbus Tower $6,073 $4,980 $11,053 

CVG Cincinnati Tower $17,634 $5,069 $22,702 

DOl Denver TRACON $434,687 $107,506 $542,193 

D10 Dallas· Ft Worth TRACON $478,672 $407,550 $886,221 

D21 Detroit TRACON $251,753 $140,081 $391,835 

DAB Daytona Beach Tower $505,773 $177,915 $683,688 

DAL Dallas Love Tower $65,959 $32,188 $98,146 

DAY Dayton Tower $35,916 $4,896 $40,812 

DCA Washington National Tower $17,198 $18,954 $36,152 

DEN Denver Tower $94,614 $53,872 $148,486 

DFW Dallas/Forth Worth Tower $152,583 $104,083 $256,665 

DLH Duluth Tower $7,778 $2,540 $10,318 

DPA Dupage Tower $149,864 $39,398 $189,262 

DSM Des Moines Tower $5,791 $4,183 $9,974 

DTW Detroit Tower $98,576 $98,136 $196,712 

DVT Deer Valley Tower $11,119 $13,091 $24,209 

DWH Hooks Tower $2,273 $1,183 $3,456 

E10 High Dese rt TRACO N $72,630 $70,626 $143,256 

ELM Elmira Tower $65,654 $51,061 $116,715 

ELP EI Paso Tower $137,916 $42,305 $180,220 

EMT EI Monte Tower $6,719 $9,287 $16,006 

ERI Erie Tower $13,531 $3,489 $17,020 

EUG Eugene Tower $120,579 $51,197 $171,776 

EW Evansville Tower $11,856 $14,333 $26,189 

EWR Newark Tower $156,441 $58,926 $215,367 

F11 Central Florida TRACON $163,758 $110,276 $274,034 

FAI Fairbanks Tower $179,310 $22,165 $201,476 

FAR Fargo Tower $15,049 $2,135 $17,184 

FAT Fresno Tower $41,269 $35,420 $76,689 

FAY Fayetteville Tower $49,522 $32,315 $81,837 

FCM Flying Cloud Tower $4,149 $1,388 $5,537 

FFZ Falcon Tower $14,038 $16,588 $30,627 

FLL Fort lauderdale Tower $62,005 $55,815 $117,820 

FLO Florence Tower $7,515 $2,116 $9,631 

FNT Flint Tower $25,264 $9,522 $34,787 

FPR St Lucie Tower $8,116 $3,283 $11,399 

FRG Farmingdale Tower $21,541 $7,628 $29,170 
434

FY 2013: 

Facility ID Facility Name FY2012 Ql+Q2 Grand Total 

FSD Sioux Falls Tower $14,428 $17,956 $32,384 

FSM Fort Smith Tower $17,115 $6,702 $23,817 

FTW Meacham Tower $18,352 $9,926 $28,278 

FWA Fort Wayne Tower $14,320 $3,281 $17,601 

FXE Fort lauderdale Executive Tower $70,975 $20,789 $91,764 

GCN Grand Canyon Tower $4,649 $3,603 $8,253 

GEG Spokane Tower $166,404 $63,422 $229,826 

GFK Grand Forks Tower $10,485 $5,066 $15,551 

GGG longview Tower $47,330 $14,887 $62,217 

GPT Gulfport Tower $96,255 $21,750 $118,005 

GRB Green Bay Tower $24,108 $4,748 $28,856 

GRR Grand Rapids Tower $13,321 $1,543 $14,864 

GSO Greensboro Tower $77,020 $11,740 $88,760 

G5P Greer Tower $4,264 $1,792 $6,056 

GTF Great Falls Tower $98,921 $S3,4~'152~94 HCF Honolulu Control Facility $810,488 $236,10 1,046,588 

HEF Manassas Tower $18,848 C $24,137 

HIO Hillsboro Tower $25,000 $4,066 $29,066 

HlN Helena Tower $100,389 $26,470 $126,860 

HOU Hobby Tower $50,916 $17,394 $68,310 

HPN Westchester Tower $21,612 $7,229 $28,841 

HSV Huntsville Tower $110,082 $53,813 $163,895 

HTS Huntington Tower $34,534 $9,599 $44,133 

HUF Terre Haute /Hulman ATCT/TRACON $27,053 $10,614 $37,667 

HWD Hayward Tower $14,954 $4,127 $19,081 

190 Houston TRACON $1,579,814 $674,357 $2,254,171 

lAD Dulles Tower $143,075 $23,572 $166,647 

IAH Houston Intercontinental ATC Tower $254,569 $32,384 $286,953 

ICT Wichita Tower $32,322 $13,325 $45,647 

IlG Wilmington Tower $26,563 $9,739 $36,302 

IlM Wilmington Tower $2,944 $3,925 $6,869 

IND Indianapolis Tower $74,440 $14,842 $89,282 

15P Islip Tower $34,330 $12,014 $46,344 

ITO Hila Tower $27,286 $6,070 $33,357 

JAN Jackson Tower $63,334 $48,405 $111,739 

JAX Jacksonville Tower $650,336 $243,586 $893,921 

JFK Kennedy Tower $104,009 $39,118 $143,127 

JNU Juneau Tower $5,768 $5,624 $11,392 

K90 CapeTRACON $44,626 $2 $44,628 

l30 las Vegas TRACON $258,817 $98,138 $356,955 
435

FY 2013: 

Facility ID Facility Name FY 2012 Ql+Q2 Grand Total 

LAF lafayette Tower $702 $10 $712 

LAN lansing Tower $39,959 $28,237 $68,196 

LAS las Vegas Tower $140,852 $100,784 $241,636 

LAX los Angeles Tower $518,442 $457,690 $976,131 

LBB Lubbock Tower $78,044 $20,526 $98,570 

LCH Lake Charles Tower $1,413 $898 $2,311 

LEX lexington Tower $36,893 $4,950 $41,843 

LFT lafayette Tower $14,277 $21,538 $35,81S 

LGA La Guardia Tower $44,752 $19,194 $63,947 

LGB Long Beach Tower $70,292 $14,033 $84,325 

LIT Little Rock Tower $18,034 $7,301 $25,335 

LNK lincoln Tower $2,073 $3,123 $5,196 

LOU Bowman Tower $2,996 $115 $3,112 

lVK livermore Tower $46,869 $28,733 $75,602 

M03 Memphis TRACON $145,045 $19,493 $164,538 

M98 Minneapolis TRACON $9,093 $815 $9,908 

MAF Midland Tower $243,173 $82,743 $32S,915 

MBS Saginaw Tower $30,296 $17,907 $48,202 

Mel Kansas City Tower $14,408 $4,882 $19,291 

MCO Orlando Tower $98,553 $63,800 $162,353 

MDT Harrisburg Inti Tower $57,245 $19,751 $76,996 

MOW Midway Tower $57,431 $28,084 $85,515 

MEM Memphis Tower $196,860 $82,737 $279,597 

MFO Mansfield Tower $107,250 $14,291 $121,541 

MGM Montgomery Tower $31,814 $16,958 $48,772 

MHT Manchester Tower $19,929 $2,202 $22,131 

MIA Miami Tower $90,415 $66,627 $157,042 

MIC Crystal Tower $1,794 $146 $1,940 

MKC Weeler Downtown Tower $74,471 $3,024 $77,494 

MKE Milwaukee Tower $720,950 $425,308 $1,146,258 

MKG Muskegon Tower $9,999 $3,895 $13,895 

MLI Quad City Tower $4,808 $29,121 $33,929 

MLU Monroe Tower $82,516 $10,729 $93,246 

MMU Morristown Tower $9,278 $9,007 $18,285 

MOB Mobile Tower $5,978 $5,656 $11,634 

MRI Merrill Tower $31,659 $9,851 $41,511 

MRV Monterey Tower $52,206 $14,679 $66,884 

M5N Madison Tower $25,651 $10,737 $36,388 

MSP Minneapolis Tower $24,143 $5,392 $29,535 

MSY New Orleans Tower $62,504 $50,641 $113,145 
436

FY2013: 

Facility 10 Facility Name FY2012 Ql+02 Grand Total 

MWH Grant County Tower $64,323 $11,810 $76,133 

MYF Montgomery Tower $11,712 $6,757 $18,469 

MYR Myrtle Beach Tower $500 $2,917 $3,417 

N90 New York TRACON $4,901,690 $2,862,738 $7,764,428 

NCT Northern California TRACON $1,062,027 $476,689 $1,538,716 

NEW Lakefront Tower $7,800 $7,717 $15,517 

NMM Meridian TRACON $28,291 $17,877 $46,168 

OAK Oakland Tower $235,821 $99,090 $334,910 

OGG MauiTower $15,789 $6,711 $22,501 

OKe Oklahoma City Tower $107,590 $23,047 $130,637 

OMA Eppley Tower $13,688 $1,894 $15,582 

ONT Ontario Tower $33,177 $25,517 $58,693 

ORO Chicago O'Hare Tower $520,316 $89,890 $610,206 

ORF Norfolk Tower $60,810 I $48,771 $109,581 

ORL Orlando Executive, FL ATCT Tower $7,619 I $1,125 $8,744 

P31 Pensacola TRACON $257,965 $128,145 $386,110 

P50 Phoenix TRACON $160,028 $69,239 $229,266 

P80 Portland TRACON $121,505 $67,744 $189,249 

PAE Paine Tower $11,631 $8,151 $19,782 

PAO Palo Alto Tower $42,371 $19,717 $62,088 

PBI Palm Beach Tower $71,171 $27,647 $98,818 

PCT Potomac TRACON $943,296 $385,413 $1,328,709 

POK DeKalb - Peachtree Tower $49,915 $11,986 $61,901 

POX Portland Tower $203,924 $124,925 $328,849 

PHF Patrick Henry Tower $2,741 $204 $2,945 

PHL Philadelphia Tower $393,060 $92,202 $485,262 

PHX Phoenix Tower $90,311 $27,362 $117,673 

PIA Peoria Tower $13,638 $10,411 $24,049 

PIE St Petersburg Tower $1,654 $398 $2,052 

PIT FAA Pittsburgh ATC Tower $48,523 $14,226 $62,749 

PNE Northeast Philadelphia Tower $15,694 $15,345 $31,040 

PNS Pensacola Tower $6,702 $2,556 $9,257 

poe Brackett Tower $12,965 $8,808 $21,774 

POU Poughkeepsie Tower $9,329 $680 $10,010 

PRe Prescott Tower $215,960 $33,759 $249,719 

pse Pasco Tower $18,941 $5,417 $24,358 

PSP Palm Springs Tower $19,721 $17,043 $36,764 

PTK Pontiac Tower $38,639 $8,952 $47,592 

PUB Pueblo Tower $9,686 $5,538 $15,224 

PVO Providence Tower $13,124 $252 $13,376 
437

FY2013: 

Facility 10 Facility Name FY 2012 Q1+Q2 Grand Total 

PWK Chicago Executive Tower $15,366 $8,722 $24,089 

PWM Portland Tower $37,426 $10,066 $47,493 

R90 Omaha TRACON $56,174 $8,721 $64,8!!~ 

ROG Reading Tower $10,655 $2,976 $13,631 

ROU Raleigh-Durham Tower $22,134 $8,003 $30,137 

RFO Rockford Tower $37,102 $29,523 $66,625 

RHV Reid-Hillview Tower $8,635 $1,764 $10,399 

RIC Richmond Tower $31,694 $47,309 $79,003 

RNO Reno Tower $30,268 $11,227 $41,495 

ROA Roanoke Tower $56,016 $28,428 $84,444 

ROC Rochester Tower $31,454 $17,825 $49,279 

ROW Roswell Tower $10,759 $5,403 $16,162 

RST Rochester Tower $10,635 $2,337 $12,973 

RSW Fort Myers Tower $66,502 $33,175 $99,677 

RVS Riverside Tower $12,792 $2,987 $15,779 

546 Seattle TRACON $358,236 $132,284 $490,520 

S56 Salt lake City TRACON $272,525 $85,289 $357,814 

SAN San Diego Tower ~$27'593 $64,978 

SAT San Antonio Tower $3 , $115,975 $426,366 

SAV Savannah Tower $7,803 $3,383 $11,185 

SBA Santa Barbara Tower $105,858 $45,582 $151,440 

SBN South Bend Tower $83,250 $32,570 $115,819 

SCK Stockton Tower $7,486 $4,488 $11,974 

SCT Southern California TRACON $2,533,519 $1,341,480 $3,874,999 

SOF Standiford Tower $53,222 $7,403 $60,625 

SOL Scottsdale Tower $17,103 $12,113 $29,216 

SEA Seattle Tower $111,892 $23,966 $135,858 

SEE Gillespie Tower $5,113 $3,716 $8,829 

SFB Sanford Tower $25,266 $8,925 $34,191 

SFO San Francisco Tower $75,726 $14,907 $90,633 

SGF Springfield Tower $27,019 $8,655 $35,674 

SHV Shreveport Tower $92,961 $31,576 $124,537 

SJC San Jose Tower $55,261 $17,715 $72,977 

SJU San Juan Tower $59,076 $10,167 $69,243 

SLC Salt lake City Tower $60,665 $53,944 $114,609 

SMF Sacramento Tower $111,330 $43,508 $154,838 

SMO Santa Monica Tower $12,480 $4,294 $16,774 

SNA John Wayne Tower $197,240 $126,677 $323,917 

SPI Springfield Tower $10,837 $6,908 $17,746 

SRQ Sarasota Tower $5,464 $4,890 $10,353 
438

FY 2013: 

Facility 10 Facility Name FY 2012 Ql+Q2 Grand Total 

STL St Louis Tower $35,450 $34,500 $69,950 

STP St Paul Tower $645 $0 $645 

STS Sonoma Tower $15,388 $8,600 $23,988 

STT St Thomas Tower $7,935 $2,136 $10,070 

SUS Spirit Tower $2,118 $3,426 $5,544 

SUX Sioux Gateway Tower $24,264 $16,273 $40,537 

SYR Syracuse Tower $95,687 $26,545 $122,232 

TS2 RomeTRACON $576 $1,628 $2,204 

T75 St Louis TRACON $14,536 $4,216 $18,752 

TEB Teterboro Tower $8,756 $9,227 $17,982 

TLH Tallahassee Tower $6,821 $2,500 $9,321 

TMB Tamiami Tower $7,809 $4,035 $11,844 

TOA Torrance Tower $12,418 $4,135 $16,5S3 

TOL Toledo Tower $14,933 $8,364 $23,297 

TPA Tampa Tower $104,421 $71,490 $175,911 

TRI Tri-Cities Tower $23,018 $10,693 $33,711 

TUL Tulsa Tower $41,6141 $15,757 $57,371 

TUS Tucson Tower $61,611 $24,133 $85,744 

TVC Traverse City Tower $1,289 $331 $1,620 

TWF Twin Falls Tower $10,585 $2,965 $13,550. 

TYS Knoxville Tower $79,309 $83,535 $162,844 

U90 Tucson TRACON $12,541 $21,772 $34,313 

VGT North Las Vegas Tower $5,060 $3,131 $8,191 

VNY Van Nuys Tower $9,283 $5,154 $14,437 

VRB Vero Beach Tower $22,934 $17,914 $40,848 

Y90 Yankee TRACON $116,688 $81,204 $197,892 

YIP Willow Run Tower $45,861 $21,537 $67,398 

YNG Youngstown Tower $51,251 $32,766 $84,017 

ZAB Albuquerque ARTCC $1,317,531 $276,053 $1,593,584 

ZAN Anchorage ARTCC $107,652 $43,708 $151,360 

ZAU Chicago ARTCC $1,280,850 $263,743 $1,544,594 

ZBW Boston ARTCC $337,810 $178,497 $516,307 

ZOC Washington ARTCC $7,010,759 $2,702,479 $9,713,238 

ZDV Denver ARTCC $974,166 $178,070 $1,152,236 

ZFW Fort Worth ARTCC $797,061 $741,907 $1,538,968 

ZHU Houston ARTCC $2,251,794 $652,681 $2,904,475 

ZIO Indianapolis ARTCC $489,470 $347,178 $836,648 

ZJX Jacksonville ARTCC $410,002 $232,024 $642,026 

ZKC Kansas City ARTCC $682,688 $277,220 $959,908 

ZLA Los Angeles ARTCC $3,523,070 $2,111,145 $5,634,215 
439

FY 2013: 

Facility 10 Facility Name FY 2012 Q1+Q2 Grand Total 

ZlC Salt Lake City ARTCC $176,378 $83,769 $260,148 

ZMA MiamiARTCC $423,525 $125,894 $549,419 

ZME Memphis ARTCC $1,193,586 $1,291,493 $2,485,079 

ZMP Minneapolis ARTCC $406,274 $48,578 $454,852 

ZNY New York ARTCC $5,152,918 $3,364,313 $8,517,231 

ZOA Oakland ARTCC $2,192,345 $710,735 $2,903,080 

ZOB Cleveland ARTCC $710,548 $1,434,921 $2,145,469 

ZSE Seattle ARTCC $178,597 $68,860 $247,457 

ZSU 5an Juan ARTCC $176,312 $91,556 $267,869 

ZTl Atlanta ARTCC $1,047,792 $321,684 $1,369,475 

ZUA GuamARTCC $96,009 $56,567 $152,576 

Grand Total $65,693,237 $31,916,152 $97,609,389 
440

WORKERS COMPENSATION 

Latham-43 

AHR 

QUESTION: Please update the data below showing the number of FAA 

employees receiving workers' compensation payments, and 

associated costs, by providing data for each of fiscal years 2009 

through 2012. 

ANSWER: 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

FY Charged Cost Cases FECA 

Chargeback Year 

FY 2014 $94,904 2,427 2012* 

FY 2013 $90,623 2,591 20ll * 

FY 2012 $90,990 2,719 2010' 

FY 2011 $92,469 2,797 2009* 

FY 2010 $90,949 2,911 2008* 

FY 2009 $87,046 2,898 2007* 

FY 2008 $85,761 2,874 2006 

FY 2007 $86,529 3,193 2005** 

FY 2006 $86,859 3,300 2004 

FY 2005 $88,320 3,521 2003 

FY 2004 $87,842 3,731 2002 

FY 2003 $86,365 3,706 2001 

FY 2002 $83,701 3,566 2000 

* Federal Employment Compensation Act (FECA) CB Year 2007 is July 1, 2006 through 

June 30, 2007. 

* Federal Employment Compensation Act (FECA) CB Year 2008 is July 1, 2007 through 

June 30, 2008. 
441

* Federal Employment Compensation Act (FECA) CB Year 2009 is July l, 2008 through 

June 30. 2009. 

* Federal Employment Compcnsation Act (FECA) CB Year 2010 is July 1, 2009 through 

June 30, 2010. 

* Federal Employment Compensation Act (FECA) CB Year 2011 is July 1,2010 through 

June 30, 2011. 

* Federal Employmcnt Compensation Act (FECA) CB Year 2012 is July 1,2011 through 

June 30, 2012. 

** Correction: The number of cases in CY05 is 3,193. This figure was stated incorrectly as 

3,931 in the 2008 Questions for the Record 
442

WORKERS COMPENSATION 

Latham-44 

AHR 

QUESTION: Please provide a breakdown of workers' compensation 

recipients by age shown on the table below. 

ANSWER: 

Chargeback Year 2012 

Age # Employees on All 

OWCP Series 2152 Other 

60-69 163 241 

70-79 339 139 

80 and above 203 112 
443

WORKERS COMPENSATION 

Latham-45 

AHR 

QUESTION: Please provide data below showing the average workers' 

compensation payment for employees in job series 2152, and 

comparing that to the government-wide average. 

ANSWER: 

Chargeback Year 2012 

Average Payment 

(in whole dollars) 

Job Series 2152 $66,613 

Other FAA $42,674 

Government-wide $25,693* 

*Data provided by Department of Labor 
444

WORKERS COMPENSATION 

Latham-46 

AHR 

QUESTION: Please update the table below showing chronological statistics 

on your workers' compensation program by providing data for 

calendar years 2007 through 2012. 

ANSWER: 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

CY Cost Change Percent # Cases Case Percent 

Change Change Change 

*12 $94,904 4,281 4.7 2,427 (164) (6.3) 

*11 $90,623 (367) (.4) 2,591 (128) (4.7) 

*10 $90,990 (1,479) (1.6) 2,719 (78) (2.8) 

*09 $92,469 1,520 1.7 2,797 (114) (3.9) 

*08 $90,949 3,903 4.5 2,911 13 .4 

*07 $87,046 1,285 1.5 2,898 24 .8 

06 $85,761 (768) (0.9) 2,874 (319) (10.0) 

**05 $86,529 (330) (0.4) 3,193 (107) (3.2) 

04 $86,859 (1,461) (1.7) 3,300 (221) (6.3) 

03 $88,320 478 0.5 3,521 (210) (5.6) 

02 $87,842 1,477 1.7 3,731 25 0.7 

01 $86,365 2,664 3.2 3,706 140 3.9 

00 $83,701 (636) (0.8) 3,566 60 1.7 

*07 = FECA Charge Back Year 2007 is July 1,2006 through June 30, 2007. 

*08 = FECA Charge Back Year 2007 is July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008. 
445

*09 = FECA Charge Back Year 2007 is July 1,2008 through June 30, 2009. 

* 10 = FECA Charge Back Year 2007 is July 1, 2009 through June 30, 2010. 

* 11 = FECA Charge Back Year 2007 is July 1, 2010 through June 30, 2011. 

* 12 = FECA Charge Back Year 2007 is July 1,2011 through June 30, 2012. 

** 05 = Correction: The number of cases in CY05 is 3,193. This figure was stated 

incorrectly as 3,931 in the 2008 Questions for the Record 
446

GSA Rent 

Latham - 47 

AFN/ARC 

QUESTION: How much is included in your fiscal year 2014 request for GSA 

rent, and how does that compare to fiscal years 2012 and 2013? 

ANSWER: 

The GSAlDHS Rent base in FY 2013 is $115.4 million, similar to FY 2012. The 

FY 2014 requested increase of$5.4 million represents four major increases in 

facility cost which are attributed to the FAA Headquarters Wilbur Wright 

Building, the New England Regional Office, the Southern Regional Office, and the 

AJV AeroNav Office in Silver Spring, MD. This will bring the GSA rent base to 

$120.8 million. 
447

AERONAUTICAL CHARTING PROGRAM 

Latham-48 

ATO/OPS 

QUESTION: Please provide a status ofthe Aeronautical Navigation 

Products divisions' efforts to develop and field modern 

digital mapping products. 

ANSWER: 

AeroNav Products division has implemented a state-of the-art, databasedriven, automated production system for the AirportlFacility Directory. 

Modern production systems based on Geographic Information System (GIS) 

technology are also being implemented for producing the En Route Charts, 

with a planned completion by the end ofFY 2015. Depending on the 

availability of funding, these same modern GIS-based production 

technologies will be implemented for the remaining chart series (Terminal 

Procedure Publications and Visual Charts). 
448

AERONAUTICAL CHARTING PROGRAM 

Latham-49 

ATO/OPS 

QUESTION: Please describe the cost savings that would be associated 

with the replacement of the legacy paper map products 

with a digital service. 

ANSWER: 

The FAA is working on a proposal to make business process and policy 

changes to the current Aeronautical Product business model as it relates to 

the sale of Digital Products. These changes would not result in a cost 

savings to the FAA, but will enhance safety by ensuring the integrity of 

FAA digital aeronautical products sold in the market. They would also 

resolve the current loss of revenue the FAA is experiencing through the sales 

of unauthorized copies of the digital products. The FAA is only authorized 

to recover costs attributable to: data base management and processing; 

compilation; printing or other types of reproduction; and dissemination of 

aeronautical products and services. 
449

AERONAUTICAL CHARTING PROGRAM 

Latham-50 

ATO-OPS 

QUESTION: Please describe the mechanisms for a fee for service 

program that would be associated with a new digital 

mapping service. 

ANSWER: 

The Aeronautical Charting Program has always been a fee-based program. 

The FAA has had the legislative authority to recover the cost of aeronautical 

charts and related products for over 13 years (Public Law 106-181, dated 

AprilS, 2000, which was later codified in 49 USC Section 44721). Even as 

far back as 1926, when the Aeronautical Charting Program was under the 

Department of Commerce, the Program operated as a fee based Program. 

This legislation states that "the price of an aeronautical product sold to the 

public shall be not more than necessary to recover all costs attributable to: 

data base management and processing; compilation; printing or other types 

of reproduction; and dissemination of the product." The current fee 

structure was established to ensure the FAA could realize full allowable cost 

recovery in accordance with this legislative authority. 
450

LATHAM-51 

ATO-OPS 

AERONAUTICAL CHARTING PROGRAM 

QUESTION: What are the real costs for producing paper charts 

versus the real costs for producing digital charts? 

ANSWER: 

The FAA is authorized to recover the costs attributable to: (i) data base 

management and processing; (ii) compilation; (iii) printing or other types of 

reproduction; and (iv) dissemination of the product. The cost to produce 

aeronautical navigation products whether it is in a paper or digital format is 

the same and shared equally when it comes to the data base management and 

compilation process. Compilation is the process of taking aeronautical data 

and information and compiling it into aeronautical charts and publications. 

The share of these costs should be equal to each user whether the product is 

in paper format or digital. The only difference in cost of paper versus digital 

is the printing and dissemination process. The printing and dissemination of 

digital products is significantly less, although there are some costs associated 

with web services necessary for disseminating digital files. 

Also, as processes are automated there will be an increase in database 

management costs, which would include any additional costs associated with 

maintaining newly implemented automated systems replacing the current 

manual processes. These costs would need to be equally shared by paper 

and digital products. 

The real FY 2012 cost for producing Aeronautical Charts and Publications in 

paper and digital format was $58.2 million. The cost, if all charts were only 

provided in a digital format, would have been approx. $46.6 million. 

However, since the $11.6 million difference is a cost recoverable amount as 

defined in the authorization, it would not result in any savings to the FAA. 

Also, the aviation user groups (Le., Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association 

[AOPA], National Business Aviation Association [NBAA], etc.) are 

adamantly opposed to the elimination of paper Aeronautical Charts because 

the majority of their membership still want and require paper charts. 
451

SEQUESTRATION IMPACTS 

Pastor-l 

AFN/ABP 

QUESTION: Please delineate specific reductions to date meet sequestration 

targets? List the account and program. How many total 

employees were furloughed? What savings were achieved? 

ANSWER: 

While the FAA was provided the authority to transfer funds from the Airports 

account to avoid furloughing our employees, this transfer does not entirely 

eliminate the impacts of sequestration. To meet the reductions in the Operations 

Account, FAA is reducing contracts by $136 million and travel by $24 million. In 

the Facilities & Equipment Activity 5 account that covers personnel, FAA is 

reducing travel and other non-pay expenditures by $18 million. 

Before enactment of the Reducing Flight Delays Act of2013 allowed us to cancel 

furloughs, about 21,140 employees had been furloughed for some duration. Total 

savings from these furloughs was $8.7 million. 
452

SEQUESTRATION IMP ACTS 

Pastor-3 

AHR 

QUESTION: The FAA must make more than $631 million in reductions due to 

sequestration. HR 1765 allows FAA to transfer up to $253 

million in FAA funds (including AlP) to mitigate employee 

furloughs. What changes, if any, have been made to FAA's 

overtime policies? 

ANSWER: 

The FAA's policy on overtime has not changed. 
453

Pastor-4 

ATO/AHR 

SEQUESTRATION IMP ACTS 

QUESTION: The FAA must make more than $631 million in reductions 

due to sequestration. HR 1765 allows FAA to transfer up 

to $253 million in FAAfunds (including AlP) to mitigate 

employeefurloughs. What reductions has FAA made to 

its training programs since March 1st? Please list 

cancelled training courses and cost savings per course. 

ANSWER: 

The FAA University cancelled 52 classes for the remainder ofFY13 for a 

total program savings of approximately $4M. Below is a distribution of the 

savings per course: 

FY 13 Cancelled Classes (April - Septl 

#of 

cis Savings Qer crs 

FMC-2 Frontline Managers Course 2 14 

13 

4 

1,430,724.66 

FMC-3 Program for Frontline Managers Course 3 1,122,144.84 

MMC Middle Managers Course 

MCM Managerial Coaching and Mentoring 

CCM Constructive Conflict Management (No Student Travel) 

LMR Labor Management Relations 

SFI Strategy Formulation and Implementation 

13 Influence, Inquiry, and Implications 

CEWE Creating Effective Work Environments Web based ers (no Student Travel) 

CC Crucial Confrontations (no Student Travel) 4 

eLR E Labor Relations (no Student Travel) estimated cost $ 

Totals 52 $ 

In addition to the FAA University courses and in conjunction with the 

March 1 st hiring freeze, Air Traffic Organization (ATO) reviewed the 

requirements for training activities at the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City. 

Requirements for training newly-hired employees would rapidly decline 

after the implementation of the hiring freeze and deferring requirements for 

other specialized training was reviewed as a potential "reduce funding" 

initiative. 

362,503.40 

250,994.27 

13,871.70 

192,975.98 

150,073.50 

290,218.55 

49,287.96 

51,159.51 

27,045.63 

3,941,000 
454

A TO elected to defer all specialized training at the Academy beginning on 

April 15th • Classes in progress as of that date would continue until 

completion. The decision enabled a staged reduction in contract instruction 

and maintenance resources through June 30 and a significant reduction in 

travel and per diem expenditures for students. 

A TO does not manage the classes at the Academy on a per class cost basis. 

The reduced funding related to sequester was captured in the larger contracts 

and travel expenses that support the operation of the Academy. The plan as 

described above captured $6.9 million in contract reductions and 

$9.6 million in travel reductions. 

In addition to the training reductions at the Academy, ATO also reduced the 

budget for contract training development by $10 million. This funding 

supports updating existing and the development of new curriculum for our 

technical work force. 

A list of the courses deferred at the Academy as a result of A TO reduced 

funding efforts is attached. 
Section Item Number Item Title 

AMA-411 40068001 NRLS VHF FM Raaia Systems ana NetworK Sarrware or Technicians AMA-411 40068001 NRCS VHF/FM Radio Systems and Network Sorrware or Tecnnlcians AMA-411 40068001 NRCS VHF/FM Radio Systems and Network Sottware tor Technicians AMA-411 40068001 NRCS VHF FM Raaio Systems ana NetworK So tware or Technicians AMA-411 40068001 NRCS VHF/FM Radio Systems ana NetWOrk Software or Tecnnicians AMA-411 40068001 NRCS VHF/FM Radio Systems and Network Sottware tor Technicians 

AMA-411 4006.001 NRCS VHF FM Ra io Systems ana Network Software tor Technicians 

AMA-411 40076001 Selt Sustaining Out ets ISSO} Danie s Radio LaDoratory IAcademy EHOT 

AMA-411 40080001 RCE Hardware Maintenance - Lab AMA-411 40080001 ReE Haroware Maintenance - Lab AMA-411 40080001 ReE Haraware Maintenance - lao AMA-411 40080001 RCE Hardware Maintenance - Lab 

AMA-411 40u80001 RCE Haraware Maintenance - lao AMA-411 40080001 RCE Hardware Maintenance - Lao AMA-411 40080001 RCE Hardware Maintenance - Lab AMA-411 40080u01 RCE Haraware Maintenance - lao AMA-411 40083001 Comm Radios Technlca Operations New Hire Training ITOHTC2} EHOT AMA-411 40083001 Comm Radios Technical Operations New Hire Training (TOHTC2) EHOT AMA-411 40083001 Comm Raoios Tecnnita Operations New Hire Training TOHTC2 EHOT 

AMA-411 40083001 Comm Radios Technica Operations New Hire Training (TOHTC2) EHOT AMA-411 40083001 Comm Radios Technical Operations New Hire Training (TOHTC2) EHOT AMA-411 40083001 Comm Raaios Tecnnica Operations New Hire Trainmg TOHTCLJ EHuT AMA-411 40083001 omm Radios Technical Operations New Hire Training (TOHTC2) EHOT AMA-411 40083001 Comm Radios Technical Operations New Hire Training (TOHTC2) EHOT 

AMA-411 40525001 Tecnnica Operations New Hire Training (TOHTC1J AMA-411 40525001 Technical Operations New Hire Training ITOHTC1) AMA-411 40525001 Tee niea Operations New Hire Training (TOHTC1) AMA-411 40525001 Tee oical Operations New Hire Training lTOHTC1J AMA-411 40525001 Technical Operations New Hire Training ITOHTC1) AMA-411 41915001 Navigation System Concepts AMA-411 41915001 Navigation System Concepts 

AMA-411 41915001 Navigation System Concepts AMA-411 41916001 Theory of Instrument landing Systems (lLS) AMA-411 41916001 Theory of Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) AMA-411 41916001 Theory of Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) AMA-411 41916001 Theory of Instrument Landing Systems (iLS) 

AMA-412 40252 RUllway \iisual Range (RVR) Equipment, Tasker 500 
AMA-412 40258 Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), Models FA-8974/FA-9639 

AMA-412 40285 low Power TACAN Antenna Maintenance AMA-412 40285 low Power TACAN Antenna Maintenance AMA-412 40285 Low Power TACAN Antenna Maintenance AMA-412 40285 Low Power TACAN Antenna Maintenance AMA-412 40285 Low Power TACAN Antenna Maintenance AMA-412 40285 Low Power TACAN Antenna Maintenance 

AMA-412 40285 low Power TACAN Antenna Maintenance AMA-412 40285 Low Power TACAN Antenna Maintenance 

AMA-412 40285 Low Power TACAN Antenna Maintenance 

AMA-412 40286 Third Generation VOR/DME Maintenance AMA-412 40297 Cardion Oistanace Measuring Equipment (DME) (FA-9783) Laboratory AMA-412 40297 Cardion Distanace Measuring Equipment (DME) (FA-9783) Laboratory AMA-412 40297 Cardion Distanace Measuring Equipment (OME) (FA-9783) Laboratory AMA-412 40297 Cardion Oistanace Measuring Equipment (OME) (FA-9783) Laboratory AMA-412 40297 Cardion Distanace Measuring Equipment (OME) (FA-9783) Laboratory 

AMA-412 40297 Cardian Distanace Measuring Equipment (OME) (FA-9783) Laboratory AMA-412 40297 Cardion Distanace Measuring Equipment (OME) (FA-9783) Laboratory AMA-412 41239 Instrument Landing System (IL5) Mark IDEF Laboratory (Academy) AMA-412 41239 Instrument Landing System (ILS) Mark IDEF Laboratory (Academy) AMA-412 41239 Instrument Landing System (ILS) Mark IDEF Laboratory (Academy) AMA-412 41239 Instrument Landing System (ILS) Mark IDEF Laboratory (Academy) AMA-412 41239 Instrument Landing System (ILS) Mark IDEF Laboratory (Academy) 

AMA-412 41244 Capture Effect Glideslope (CEG) Lab AMA-412 41244 Capture Effect Glideslope (CEG) Lab AMA-412 41244 Capture Effect Glideslope (CEG) Lab AMA-412 41245 End-Fire Glideslope (EFGS) AMA-412 41245 End-Fire Glideslope (EFGS) AMA-412 41900 Distance Measuring Equipment (OM E), Model 4155E EHOT AMA-412 41900 Distance Measuring Equipment (OM E), Model 415SE EHOT 

AMA-412 41900 Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), Model 415SE EHOT 

AMA-412 41900 Distance Measuring Equipment (DME), Model 4155E EHOT 

AMA-412 41906 Mark 20/20A ILS EHOT AMA-412 41906 Mark 20/20A ILS EHOT AMA-412 41906 Mark 20/20A ILS EHOT AMA-412 41906 Mark 20/20A ILS EHOT AMA-412 41906 Mark 20/20A ILS EHOT AMA-412 41906 Mark 20/20A ILS EHOT AMA-412 41917001 ASII1118 Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) EHOT 

AMA-412 41917001 A5111118 Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) EHOT AMA-412 41917001 AS1I1118 Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) EHOT AMA-412 41918001 Juneau Airport Wind System (JAWS) AMA-412 41920001 2nd Gen VORTAC Equipment (FA-9996) EHOT 
AMA-412 41920001 2nd Gen VORTAC Equipment (FA-9996) EHOT AMA-412 41920001 2nd Gen VORTAC Equipment (FA-9996) EHOT AMA-413 40042 Litton Rapid Deployment Voice Switch (RDVs) Model 3080-F AMA-413 40042 Litton Rapid Deployment Voice Switch (RDVS) Model 3080-F 

AMA-413 40042 Litton Rapid Deployment Voice Switch (RDVs) Mode13080-F AMA-413 40042 Litton Rapid Deployment Voice Switch (RDVS) Model 3080-F AMA-413 40043 ACD/VRS - DSP 1000 Maintenance AMA-413 40052 VSCS Site Software Support AMA-413 40059 Small Tower Voice Switch (STVS) Laboratory (Academy) AMA-413 40059 Small Tower Voice Switch (STVs) Laboratory (Academy) 

AMA-413 40059 Small Tower Voice Switch (STVS) Laboratory (Academy) AMA-413 40059 Small Tower Voice Switch (STVs) Laboratory (Academy) AMA-413 40066 Enhanced Terminal Voice Switch (ETVs) EHOT AMA-413 40066 Enhanced Terminal Voice Switch (ETVs) EHOT AMA-413 40066 Enhanced Terminal Voice Switch (ETVs) EHOT AMA-413 40158 Fiber Optic Concepts 

AMA-413 401S8 Fiber Optic Concepts AMA-413 40158 Fiber Optic Concepts AMA-413 401S9 Racal-Premnet Fiber Optic Multiplexer AMA-413 40340 Radio Communication Link (RCl) Terminal Equipment AMA-413 40340 Radio Communication link (RCl) Terminal Equipment AMA-413 40600 Common Equipment for Radio Communications Link (CE-RCL) sys AMA-413 40600 Common Equipment for Radio Communications link Sys AMA-413 40600 Common Equipment for Radio Communications link (CE-RCL) Sys 

AMA-413 40603 MDR-5000 2 and 8 GHz Series Microwave Digital Radio LDRCL System AMA-413 42059 8 GHz Series Microwave Digital Radio lDRCl System AMA-413 42059 MDR-6000 8 GHz Series Microwave Digital Radio LDRCL System AMA-413 42060 TSM-2S00 Monitoring and Control LDRCL RMMS System AMA-413 40070001 Digital Audio Legal Recorder (DALR) AMA-413 40070001 Digital Audio Legal Recorder (DALR) AMA-413 40070001 Digital Audio Legal Recorder (DALR) AMA-413 40070001 Digital Audio Legal Recorder (DALR) AMA-413 40070001 Digital Audio Legal Recorder (DALR) 

AMA-413 40070001 Digital Audio Legal Recorder (DALR) AMA-413 40070001 Digital Audio Legal Recorder (DALR) 

AMA-413 40074001 VSCS/VTABS Hardware Maintenance 

AMA-413 40075001 Interim Voice Switch Replacement System EHOT AMA-413 40075001 Interim Voice Switch Replacement System EHOT AMA-413 40075001 Interim Voice Switch Replacement System EHOT AMA-413 40079001 Maintenance of Fiber Optic Transmission System (FOTS) AMA-413 40079001 Maintenance of Fiber Optic Transmission System (FOTS) AMA-413 40079001 Maintenance of Fiber Optic Transmission System (FOTS) 
AMA-413 40079001 Maintenance of Fiber Optic Transmission System (FOTS) AMA-413 40079001 Maintenance of Fiber Optic Transmission System (FOTS) AMA-413 40079001 Maintenance of Fiber Optic Transmission System (FOTS) 

AMA-413 40079001 Maintenance of Fiber Optic Transmission System (FOTS) AMA-413 40081001 Charles 360-80 Channel Bank AMA-413 40081001 Charles 360-80 Channel Bank AMA-413 40081001 Charles 360-80 Channel Bank AMA-414 40398 Sensor Maintenance 

AMA-414 40398 Mode-$ Sensor Maintenance AMA-414 40398 Mode-S Sensor Maintenance AMA-414 40398 Mode-$ Sensor Maintenance AMA-414 40398 Mode-S Sensor Maintenance AMA-414 40664 Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) Model 9 AMA-414 40664 Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) Model 9 

AMA-414 40664 Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR) Model 9 AMA-414 42069 Airport Surveillance Radar-ll (ASR-ll) AMA-414 42069 Airport Surveillance Radar-ll (ASR-ll) AMA-414 42069 Airport Surveillance Radar-ll (ASR-11) AMA-414 42069 Airport Surveillance Radar-ll (ASR-ll) AMA-414 42069 Airport Surveillance Radar-ll (ASR-ll) 

AMA-414 40679001 ASDE-X with SMRR EHOT AMA-414 40679001 ASDE-X with SMRR EHOT AMA-414 40680001 ASDE-X with SMRi EHOT AMA-414 40685001 ASDE-3A AMASS Hardware EHOT AMA-414 40687001 Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR)-8 lab 

AMA-414 40687001 Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR)-8 lab 

AMA-414 40687001 Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR)-8lab 

AMA-414 40688001 Radar Concepts and Fundamentals AMA-414 40688001 Radar Concepts and Fundamentals AMA-414 40688001 Radar Concepts and Fundamentals AMA-414 40689001 ASDE-3X EHOT AMA-41S 40383 ARSR 1/2 En Route System with SSR / DMTI MOD AMA-415 40383 ARSR 1/2 En Route System with SSR / DMTI MOD AMA-415 40399 FPS Series Radar 

AMA-41S 40667 Integrated Terminal Weather System (lTWS) Hardware Maintenance EHOT AMA-415 40667 Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS) Hardware Maintenance EHOT AMA-415 40667 Integrated Terminal Weather System (ITWS) Hardware Maintenance EHOT AMA-415 40675 A TCBI-6/6M EHOT AMA-415 40675 ATCBI-6/6M EHOT 

AMA-415 40675 ATCBI-6/6M EHOT AMA-415 40675 ATCBI-6/6M EHOT 
AMA-415 40675 ATCBI-6/6M EHOT AMA-415 40675 ATCBI-6/6M EHOT AMA-415 41243 ATC Beacon Interrogator (ATCBI)-5 Trans/Receiver Site Lab (Academy) AMA-415 41243 ATC Beacon Interrogator (ATC81)-5 Trans/Receiver Site Lab (Academy) 

AMA-415 42075 ITWS Remote Situation Display AMA-415 42075 ITWS Remote Situation Display AMA-415 42075 ITWS Remote Situation Display 

AMA-415 43549 Common Digitizer ICD), ModeI2A/8/C/D/E 

AMA-415 40682001 ITWS Secondary Reliever Airport (SRA), non-TDWR ATCT Situation Display (SO) AMA-415 42080001 Terminal Doppler weather Radar (TDWR) System EHOT 

AMA-415 42080001 Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) System EHOT AMA-415 42080001 Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) System EHOT AMA-421 40373 DBRITE 

AMA-421 40373 DBRITE AMA-421 40373 D8RITE AMA-421 40474 ARTS liE for ATSS AMA-421 40670 Full STARS Maintenance EHOT AMA·421 40670 Full STARS Maintenance EHOT AMA-421 40670 Full STARS Maintenance EHOT 

AMA-421 40670 Full STARS Maintenance EHOT AMA-421 40676 STARS Software Administraiton and Security AMA-421 40676 STARS software Adm!nistralton and Security AMA-421 42055 ARTS IIIE Software Maintenance for SPSs AMA-421 42055 ARTS HIE Software Maintenance for $PSs AMA-421 40496001 Hardware Maintenance for Micro-EARTS 

AMA-421 40496001 Hardware Maintenance for Micro-EARTS AMA-421 40497001 Software Maintenance for Micro-EARTS 

AMA-421 40497001 Software Maintenance for Micro-EARTS 

AMA-421 40692001 STARS Remote Tower EHOT AMA-421 40692001 STARS Remote Tower EHOT AMA-421 40694001 STARS G4 Full Service EHOT AMA·421 40697001 STARS G4 Delta (TRACON &RT) 

AMA-421 40697001 STARS G4 Delta (TRACON &RT) AMA-421 40697001 STARS G4 Delta (TRACON &RT) AMA-421 40697001 STARS G4 Delta (TRACON &RT) AMA-421 40698001 STARS G4 Full Service For Remote Tower EHOT AMA·421 40698001 STARS G4 Full Service For Remote Tower EHOT AMA·421 40698001 STARS G4 Full Service For Remote Tower EHOT AMA·421 40698001 STARS G4 Full Service For Remote Tower EHOT AMA·421 40698001 STARS G4 Full Service for Remote Tower EHOT 

AMA-421 40698001 STARS G4 Full Service For Remote Tower EHOT 

AMA-421 40698001 STARS G4 Ful! Service For Remote Tower EHOT 
[AMA-421 

WMll 

IAMA-421 I 43077oo11ARTS IIIE for System Managers 

43077001 ARTS IIIE for System Managers 

45469001 Hardware Maintenance for ATOP FCT 

40298 WAAS WMS Communication Node Maintenance 

40298 WAAS WMS Communication Node Maintenance 

AMA-422 40420 HOST Concepts 

AMA-422 40426 HOST Peripheral Devices and Diagnostics 

AMA-422 41901 WAAS WMS C&V Maintenance 

AMA-422 41901 WAAS WMS C&V Maintenance 

AMA-422 43535 HOST NAS Operations for NAS/ NOMS 

AMA-422 40482001 En Route Automation Systems (EAS) Administration 

AMA-422 40482001 En RouteAutomation Systems (EAS) Administration 

IAMA-422 I 419070011wAAS Operator Training 

AMA-422 41913001 WAAS O&M Maintainer 

AMA-422 41914001 WAAS WRS Maintenance 

AMA-422 41914001 WAAS WRS Maintenance 

AMA-422 43073001 En Route Automation System (EA5) Maintenance 

AMA-422 43075001 EnRoute Communications Gateway (ECG) / (EBUS) 

AMA-422 43075001 En Route Communications Gateway (ECG) / (EBUS) 

AMA-423 40429 Automated Weather Sensor System (AWSS) Maintenance 

AMA-423 40429 Automated Weather Sensor System (AWSS) Maintenance AMA-423 40450 ACE-IDS Hardware Maintenance Training 

AMA-423 40450 ACE-IDS Hardware Maintenance Training 

AMA-423 40450 ACE-IDS Hardware Maintenance Training AMA-423 40463 HID/NAS/LAN 

AMA-423 40463 HID/NAS/LAN 

40463 HID/NAS/LAN 40463 HID/NAS/LAN 

AMA-423 I 40463IHID/NAS/LAN 

[AIV1A-423 40463[HID/NAS/LAN 

I 40463IHID/NAS/LAN I 404641Tower Data Link Services" (TDlS 2) EHOT 

IAMA-423 14()464[Tower Dat"UnkServicesIlJTD152)EHOT 

!AMA-424 

AMA-4241 

AMA-424 

1 Concepts 

40180001!Environmental Concepts 

40180001 Environmental Concepts 

40182001 Mitsubishi 2033A and 9700 Series UPSs EHO 

IAMA-425 40136 Approach lighting System with Flashers (ALSF)-II (Airflo) IAMA-425 lighting System with Flashers (AlSF)-1I (Airllo) 

____________________________________

_______ 

IAMA-42S 1 401S61Air Conditioning 

________________

1 401651EPA Section 608 Certifi"ation 1 401651EPA Section 608 Certification 1 401651 EPA Section 608 Certification 

IAMA,425 I 40165[EPA Section 608 Certification 

40167 Engine Generator Power Systems laboratory (Academy) 

40167 Engine Generator laboratory (Academy) 

AMA:425 40i6ilEngine Geneiator Power Systems laboratory (Academy) AMA-425 40167 En ine Generator Power Systems laboratory (Academy) AMA-425 40167 Engine Generator Power Systems laboratory (Academy) AMA-425 401671Engine Generator Power Systems laboratory (Academy) 

[AMA-425 1 419051MALSR EHOT 

fAMA-j25J 4191J51MAl.SR EHOi 

IAMA-425 1 401740011Kohler 2nd Generation Power Systems 
AMA-425 40174001 Kohler 2nd Generation Power Systems AMA-425 40174001 Kohler 2nd Generation Power Systems AMA-425 40174001 Kohler 2nd Generation Power Systems AMA-425 40174001 Kohler 2nd Generation Power Systems AMA-425 40174001 Kohler 2nd Generation Power Systems AMA-425 40174001 Kohler 2nd Generation Power Systems AMA-425 40181001 Direct Current (DC) Bus Hardware Maintenance AMA-425 40181001 Direct Current (DC) Bus Hardware Maintenance 

AMA-425 40181001 Direct Current (DC) Bus Hardware Maintenance AMA-425 40181001 Direct Current (DC) Bus Hardware Maintenance AMA-425 40181001 Direct Current (DC) Bus Hardware Maintenance 

AMA-425 41909001 Runway Status Lights (RWSL) EHOT 

AMA-425 41909001 Runway Status Lights (RWSL) EHOT 

AMA-521 55047 ATC OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR WORKSHOP FOR FRONTLINE MANAGERS AMA-521 5S047 ATC OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR WORKSHOP FOR FRONTLINE MANAGERS AMA-521 55047 ATC OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR WORKSHOP FOR FRONTLINE MANAGERS AMA-521 55047 ATC OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR WORKSHOP FOR FRONTLINE MANAGERS 

AMA-521 55047 ATC OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR WORKSHOP FOR FRONTLINE MANAGERS AMA-521 55047 ATC OPERATIONS SUPERVISOR WORKSHOP FOR FRONTLINE MANAGERS 
464

SEQUESTRATION IMPACTS 

Pastor-5 

ATOIOps 

QUESTION: The flight service station program is an important 

resource for general aviation pilots. How has 

sequestration affected this program? Are you 

considering any changes to the flight service station 

program in FY 2014? What are FAA's long-term for 

plans for flight service stations? 

ANSWER: 

Flight Services is operated by Lockheed Martin in the CONUS, Hawaii, and 

Puerto Rico, and by the FAA in Alaska. In response to sequestration 

funding levels, Flight Services has eliminated contractor provided on-site 

support for "Special Events", (Le., Sun N' Fun, Oshkosh, Albuquerque 

Balloon Festival, etc.) in the CONUS. We have also reduced Alaska Flight 

Service participation in Safety Outreach activities. Travel has been 

significantly reduced, limiting travel to what is operationally necessary. 

As a result of sequestration and the actions the FAA took restricting hiring, 

Flight Service has not backfilled approximately 23 positions. These include 

approximately 11 air traffic control specialists, five Front Line Managers, 

and two staff specialists in Alaska and an additional five management and 

staff positions fulfilling critical leadership and technical functions in the 

Alaska Flight Service Infonnation Area group or Headquarters. 

The Flight Service operations nationwide are expected to remain status quo 

for FY 2014 at funding levels requested in the Presidents Budget. 

Long-tenn plans include creating efficiencies by leveraging advances in 

technology and expanding automation capabilities. A vast majority of 

pre-departure pilot briefings and flight plans are currently processed through 

web-based services. Continued dialogue with our stakeholders will allow us 

to meet their needs for increased use of technology, while mitigating safety 

risk and reducing costs. 
465

Sequestration Impacts 

Pastor-6 

AFN/ABP 

QUESTION: Provide a chart oftotal employees by line of business for FYll, 

FY12, and FY13. Include end of year staff-on-board levels for 

FYll and FY12 and staffing levels as of May 1 for FY 13. 

Within ATO and A VS, please specify number of controllers 

(CPC and developmental controllers), technicians, and 

inspectors (AFS and AIR) for each year. 

ANSWER: (See attachment) 
466

FAA Total Employees by LOB/SO 

Line of Business (LOB) FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 

ATO 35,837 34,105 33,702 

AVS 7,642 7,560 7,359 

AST 69 75 75 

*AFN N/A 2,885 2,894 

ABA 167 255 258 

ARC 2,200 2,073 2,079 

AIO 116 208 191 

ACQ N/A 320 325 

AFN-l/loo/2oo N/A 29 41 

*ANG 0 945 924 

AHR 620 577 545 

Staff Offices (SO) FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 

AOA/ADA 22 20 20 

ACR 81 77 68 

AGi 10 10 9 

AOC 34 30 29 

*AAE N/A 18 19 

AGC 268 239 245 

APL 165 171 166 

ASH 485 476 480 

Grants-in-Aid for Airports 546 551 561 

Grand Total 48,262 47,739 47,096 

FAA Total Employees by LOB/SO: ATO & AVS 

Controllers (CPC & Developmental), Technicians, and Inspectors 

Line of Business (LOB) FY2011 FY2012 FY2013 

ATO 

Certified Professional (CPC) 12,604 12,896 12,731 

Developmental 2,814 2,315 2,190 

Total Controllers 15,418 15,211 14,921 

PASS Technicians 6,168 6,121 6,071 

AVS 

AFS - Inspectors 4,040 4,026 3,920 

AIR - inspectors 248 258 253 

Data Source: FAA Datamart as of last full pay period (PP20) of FYll & FY12, so actual end of fiscal year AVS staffing 

levels are understated. Data for FY13 is current as of PP 09 (April 20, 2013) . 

• AFN & AAE organizations were established in FY2012. Prior to FY 2012, ANG employees were in ATO. 
467

SEQUESTRATION IMPACTS 

Pastor-7 

AFN/ABA 

QUESTION: FAA currently has a hiring freeze in place. What 

changes has the agency made to controller and inspector 

workforce plans as a result of the gap in hiring? 

ANSWER: 

As a result of sequestration and the hiring freeze that FAA has implemented, 

we now anticipate that the air traffic controller and Aviation Safety (A VS) 

headcounts at the end ofFY 2013 will be lower than their original 2013 plan 

targets. Future versions of the Controller and AVS workforce plans will 

incorporate modified hiring plans and attrition projections to address the 

impacts of sequestration. 
468

QUESTION: 

ANSWER: 

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS 

Pastor-8 

AVS 

The FAA closed its comment period regarding the 

development of a privacy policy that will govern 

operations and protocols at the chosen test sites. 

What feedback and direction are you receiving from 

federal partners like the Department of Justice and 

the Department of Homeland Security on the privacy 

policy? When will the FAA release your findings and 

decision? 

The FAA engaged our interagency partners (including NASA, DOD, and 

DHS) and sought input in the development of the FAA proposed privacy 

approach for the UAS test sites. 

The FAA is also analyzing the public input it has received regarding its 

proposed approach of including terms and conditions in the "other 

transaction agreement" (OTA) that would, among other things, require the 

operators to develop privacy policies and make them publicly available. By 

the end of August 2013, the FAA expects to have reached a determination 

regarding the final terms to include in the OT As with the test site operators. 
469

QUESTION: 

ANSWER: 

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS 

Pastor-9 

AVS 

FAA will undertake an independent evaluation of the 

airspace of the proposed test sites rendering one of 

three possible findings: feasible, feasible with 

limitations, or not feasible. Do you anticipate 

soliciting further information from applicants or 

conducting site visits prior to completing your 

evaluation process? 

The FAA currently has no plans to solicit additional information from the 

test site applicants. At this time, the FAA has no plans to visit the 

prospective test sites as a part of the selection process. 
470

QUESTION: 

ANSWER: 

UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS 

Pastor-IO 

AVS 

Will there be research grants or other funding 

opportunities to partner with the FAA and other strategic 

partners? 

The FAA currently has no plans to fund research at the test sites. The "other 

transaction agreements" (OT A) will allow the FAA and other Federal Agencies to 

fund research in the future. 
471

CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE 

Pastor -11 

ANG 

QUESTION: FAA's "Center of Excellence" program allows the agency to 

partner with universities to research specific aviation challenges 

and emerging technologies. Please provide a list of all current 

COEs along with FAA funding levels and sources. 

ANSWER: 

COE for Airport Technology (CEAT) 

University Lead:_University of Illinois - Urbana Champaign with Rensselaer 

Polytechnic Institute, XSiGHT Systems, Geo-Marine Inc., Accipiter Systems, 

Trex Enterprises Corporation, QinetiQ Group PLC, and Stratech Systems, Ltd. 

Total FAA Funds Awarded (since inception): $20,757,439 

Sources of Matching & External Support* (Outside the FAA): Chicago O'Hare 

Modernization Program, XSiGHT Systems, Geo-Marine Inc., Accipiter Systems, 

Trex Enterprises Corporation, QinetiQ Group PLC, Stratech Systems, Ltd. 

COE for General Aviation (CGAR) 

University Lead: Embry Riddle Aeronautical University with the University of 

Alaska at Fairbanks and Anchorage, the University of North Dakota, and Wichita 

State University 

Total FAA Funds Awarded (since inception): $16,484,087.87 grant awards plus 

$5,326,297 Contract Tasks** 

Sources of Matching & External Support* (Outside the FAA): AAAE, AOPAASF, EAA, HAl, NATA, NBAA, NASAO, Adam Aircraft, Avemco Insurance 

Company, A vidyne Corporation, Airshares Elite, Cessna, Cirrus Design, Eclipse 

Aviation, Garmin, Chicago Flight Instructor Association, Frasca International, 

Galvin Flying Serive, Greater St. Louis Flight Instructor Association, Jeppesen 

Sanderson, Medallion Foundation, Harris 

COE for Cabin and Intermodal Research (ACERIRITE) 
472

University Lead: Auburn University with Harvard University, Purdue 

University, Boise State University, Kansas State University, and University of 

Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey 

Total FAA Funds Awarded (since inception): $21,8l3,073 

Sources of Matching & External Support* (Outside the FAA): Honeywell, Delta, 

Singapore Airlines, United, Donaldson Filtration Solutions, Keddeg, Goodrick, 

MITRE, Battelle, Altera, Berkely Lab, US Airways, Air Transport Assication, 

Pall Corporation, Boeing, Southwest Airlines, ANSYS, Intergraph, CDC, Steris, 

AirOcare, Aeroclave, TSI, US Army, DTRA 

Joint COE for Advanced Materials (JAMS) 

University Leads: Wichita State and the University of Washington with 

Edmonds Community College, Florida International University, Northwestern 

University, Oregon State University, Purdue University, Tuskegee University, 

University of California Los Angeles and San Diego, University of Delaware, 

Washington State University, and the University of Utah 

Total FAA Funds Awarded (since inception): $21,661,321 

Sources of Matching & External Support* (Outside the FAA): The Boeing 

Company, Hexcel Corporation, Toray Composites (America), Inc., Heatcon 

Composite Systems, Cytec Engineered Materials, A&P Technology, Integrated 

Technologies, Inc., General Plastics, Sandia National Labs, General Plastics 

Manufacturing Company, Dassault Sytems/Simulia Corporation, C&D Zodiac, 

University of Washington, Washington State University, University of Utah, 

Florida International University, Oregon State University, Edmonds Community 

College 

Joint Partnership for Aircraft Noise & Aviation Emissions (PARTNER)*** 

University Leads: MIT with Boston University, Georgia Institute of 

Technology, Harvard University, Missouri University of Science and 

Technology, Pennsylvania State University, Purdue University, Stanford 

University, University of Illinois Urbana Champaign, University of North 

Carolina Chapel Hill, and University of Pennsylvania 

Total FAA Funds Awarded (since inception): $44,924,125 grant awards plus 

$9,986,733 Contract Tasks** 
473

Sources of Matching & External Support* (Outside the FAA): Aerodyne 

Research, Inc., Airbus, Airports Council International, AT AA, AIAA, Bell 

Helicopter Textron, Boeing, Bombardier, Cessna, Delta, GE, Gulfstrea, Indiana 

DOT, Lockheed Martin, Logistics Managment Institute, Massachusetts Port 

Authority, Metron, Metropolitan, Washington Airports Authority, National Org 

to Insure Sound-Controlled Environment, O'Hare Noise Compatibility 

Commission, Palisades Citizens Association, Raisbeck Engineering, Rannoch 

Corporatio, Regional Airport Authority of Lois ville and Jefferson Company, 

Rolls-Royce, San Francisco International Airport, Sikorsky, UPS, Pratt & 

Whitney, Wyle Laboratories 

COE for Commercial Space Transportation (CST) 

Administrative Lead: Florida Institute of Technology with Florida State 

University, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, New Mexico State 

University, Stanford University, University of Central Florida, University of 

Colorado at Boulder, University of Florida, and University of Texas - Medical 

Branch 

Total FAA Funds Awarded (since inception): $4,552,105 

Sources of Matching & External Support* (Outside the FAA): AIAA, Bachner 

Consultants Inc., Boeing Company, CSSI, Inc., Florida State University, 

Lockheed Martin, Loral, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, New 

Mexico State University Space Development Foundation, Scitor, Space Florida, 

Stanford University, University of Colorado at Boulder, United Launch Alliance, 

University of Texas Medical Branch 

COE for General Aviation Research (PEGASAS) 

University Lead: Purdue University with Florida Institute of Technology, 

Florida State University, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, New 

Mexico State University, Stanford University, University of Central Florida, 

University of Colorado at Boulder, University of Florida, and University of 

Texas Medical Branch 

Total FAA Funds Awarded (since inception): $60,000 

Sources of Matching & External Support* (Outside the FAA): Georgia Institute 

of Technology, Florida Institute of Technology, Ohio State University, Iowa 

State University, Texas A&M University 
474

*COE Grant funds are awarded for public purpose and are subject to a 

Congressionally mandated 1: 1 match (+ matching >$ 146K) 

* * Contract Tasks are awarded for public purpose and may include a negotiated 

cost share 

***F AA funds awarded to PARTNER include amounts supplemented by other 

gov't organizations: Transport Canada, DLA Energy, AFRL, NASA, and EPA 
FAA COE Partnerships 

with Universities 

As of March 31, 2013 

Center of Excellence 

CEAT Grant Awards* 

CGAR- Grant Awards· 

ACER/RITE - Grant Awards· 

JAM5- Grant Awards· 

FAA Centers of Excellence (CD

Congressionallnqulry - House Appropriati

May 2013 

COE Life Cycle Total FAA Funds So

Awarded 

(since inceDtionl 

1994-04/30/2013 $20,757,439 Chicag

Marine 

QinetiQ 

2001-12/31/2013 $16,484,088 AAAE, 

Avemc

Cessna

Instruc

Greate

Medall

2004-08/31/2014 $21,813,073 Honeyw

Solutio

US Air

Southw

Aerocla

2003-12/17/2015 $21,661,321 The Bo

(Ameri

Materi

Plastic

Compa

Univer

Utah, 

Edmon

Congressional Appropriations Committee (05/
***PARTNER - Grant Awards* 

CST - Grant Awards· 

PEGASAS - Grant Awards' 

SubTotal 

CGAR - Contract Tasks** 

PARTNER - Contract Tasks** 

TOTAL Funds - Current COEs 

COE Grant funds are awarded for 

public purpose and are subject to a 

Congressionally mandated 1:1 match 

(+ matching >$146K) 

* * Contract Tasks are awarded for 

public purpose and may include a 

negotiated cost share 

FAA Centers of Excellence (C

Congressional Inquiry - House Appropriat

2003-09/30/2013 $ Aerody

ATM, 

Delta, Manag

Metrop

Sound

Comm

Ranna

Jeffers

Airpor

2010-08/17/2020 $4,552,105 AlAA, 

Florid

Institu

Space 

Univer

Allianc

2012-08/2022 $60,000 Georgi

State U

$130,252,151 

I $5,326,297 I $9,986,733 

$145,565,1811 

Congressional Appropriations Committee (05
***FAA funds awarded to PARTNER 

include amounts supplemented by 

other gov1t organizations: Transport 

Canada, DLA Energy, AFRL, NASA, and 

EPA 
478

CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE 

Pastor ·12 

ANG 

QUESTION: What criteria does FAA use when evaluating applicants for 

entrance into the COE program? 

ANSWER: 

When establishing a new COE, the FAA conducts a public meeting allowing for 

dialogue with the university community and their potential industry partners; FAA 

then publishes a Final Solicitation. Subject matter experts perfonn a technical 

evaluation and a second team conducts a management and fiscal review of the 

submitted proposals. The FAA Administrator then selects COE university teams 

based on the criteria provided by Congress in the enabling legislation Public Law 

101-508, as follows: 

(4) SELECTION CRITERIA - The Administrator shall select recipients of 

grants under this subsection on the basis of the following criteria: 

(A) The extent to which the needs of the State in which the applicant is 

located are representative of the needs of the region for improved air 

transportation services and facilities. 

(B) The demonstrated research and extension resources available to 

the applicant for carrying out this subsection. 

(C) The capability of the applicant to provide leadership in making 

national and regional contributions to the solution of both long-range 

and immediate air transportation problems. 

(D) The extent to which the applicant has an established air 

transportation program. 

(E) The demonstrated ability of the applicant to disseminate results of 

air transportation research and educational programs through a 

statewide or region wide continuing education program. 

(F) The projects which the applicant proposes to carry out under the 

grant. 
479

CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE 

Pastor -13 

ANG 

QUESTION: Given the concentration on safety among the FAA's existing 

Centers of Excellence and the Administration's recent focus on 

manufacturing and design-related competitive economic 

benefits of advanced composite materials for America's next 

generation aircraft, should there be a Center concentrating on 

those benefits to complete the existing Centers of Excellence 

mission and vision? 

ANSWER: 

The FAA COE Program Office has participated in discussions over the past year to 

determine the feasibility of a COE that could be established to focus on such issues 

beginning in 2015 when the current Joint COE for Advanced Materials (JAMS) 

comes to a close (please see the sponsor's description of this center below). We 

are aware of the external interest expressed in support of this topic area; however, 

there is a need to involve universities as well as their affiliates from the aviation 

industry in a long-term plan. Critical to our decision-making is the assurance that 

both FAA and the required shared funding from COE industry and other nonfederal sources would be available to appropriately plan for and adequately support 

a new COE in the future. 

The FAA Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence 

(JAMS) concentrates on the manufacturing and design-related competitive 

economic benefits of advanced composite materials for America's next generation 

aircraft. 

Research done through JAMS encompasses polymer composites, new materials, 

advanced processing techniques, advanced structural concepts, cabin safety and 

crashworthiness. Within JAMS is the Center of Excellence for Composites & 

Advanced Materials (CECAM) which is focused on multiple projects of 

advanced composite materials for America's next generation aircraft. Recent 

project areas include: 

• Depot Bonded Repair Investigation - Round Robin Testing 

National Institute for Aviation Research, Wichita State University 
480

• Impact Damage Formation on Composite Aircraft Structures 

University of California - San Diego 

• Damage Tolerance Testing and Analysis Protocols for Fnll-Scale 

Composite Airframe Structures under Repeated Loading-Certification 

of Composite-Metal Hybrid Structures 

National Institute for Aviation Research, Wichita State University 

• Environmental Compensation Factor Influence on Composite Design 

and Certification 

National Institute for Aviation Research, Wichita State University 

• Crashworthiness of Composites Structures-Certification by Analysis 

National Institute for Aviation Research, Wichita State University, Wichita 

State University 

• Development of Dynamic Mechanical Analyzer (DMA) Calibration & 

Testing Procedures 

National Institute for Aviation Research, Wichita State University 

Additional infonnation about the JAMS Center of Excellence is available at 

\\\\ \\.J, \\IS~coe,org 

Additional Infonnation on JAMS: 

In December 2003, the Federal Aviation Administration announced ajoint award 

to Wichita State University and the University of Washington to create the FAA 

Joint Advanced Materials and Structures Center of Excellence (JAMS). WSU was 

designated as a Center of Excellence for Composites and Advanced Materials 

(CECAM) and the University of Washington was designated as a center for 

Advanced Materials in Transport Aircraft Structures (AMTAS). 

The center addresses the engineering and science issues associated with safety, 

regulation and product certification of advanced materials and structures to assure 

equivalent or higher levels of safety relative to existing technology. It also 

establishes engineering standards and provides training in the area of advanced 

materials and structures. The ultimate goal is to develop an advanced materials 

and structures knowledge base. 

FAA-sponsored research conducted by the JAMS center of excellence is divided 

into nine technical areas focused on advanced materials and structures: 
481

• Material Standardization and Shared Databases 

• Bonded Joints Issues 

• Structural Substantiation 

• Damage Tolerance and Durability 

• Maintenance Practices 

• Advanced Material F onus and Processes 

• Cabin Safety 

• Nanotechnology for Composite Structures 

• Life Management of Materials for Improved Aircraft Maintenance Practices 

JAMS has made a commitment to focus on aviation safety and certification needs 

by involving additional FAA and industry personnel in the process. The research 

reviewed shows continuing efforts to focus on aviation industry safety and 

certifications needs. This is a major accomplishment for the center and a fitting 

close to the first phase of the JAMS program. The program highlights the work of 

each of the universities and is becoming proficient at researching the safe use of 

composites and other advanced materials and processes in aircraft structures. This 

increases the value of the center to the FAA and the aviation community in 

general. 
482

Pastor-14 

AFN 

OFFICE OF FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT REORGANIZATION 

QUESTION: The budget proposes to reorganize FAA's structure by combining 

en route and terminal services. FAA underwent a major 

reorganization two years ago when the Air Traffic Organization 

program management office and the shared services 

organization were created. First, what efficiencies have the 

FAA gained from the reorganization two years ago? 

ANSWER: 

The FAA assembled, in one organization within the ATO, the majority of 

programs that specialize in program management. The Program Management 

Organization (PMO) has improved consistency of program execution through 

robust information sharing with stakeholders, institutionalization of acquisition 

best practices, and community review of lessons learned. An example of such 

information sharing is the bi-weekly Program Management Reviews. These 

briefings are held to discuss program status and include program schedule 

milestones, risks, budget, effectiveness on other systems within the NAS, and the 

measuring of program metrics and their impacts on ATO goals such as ATO 

Priorities and business plan initiatives. 

The PMO has also formed a collaborative working relationship with NextGen to 

help determine, from an air traffic perspective, how to marry NextGen's vision 

with solutions that work in the operations environment. 

In September 2011, as part of its Foundation for Success review, the FAA 

consolidated and centralized common financial, acquisitions, information 

technology, and regions and center operations functions under a new shared 

services provider organization-the Office of Finance and Management (AFN). 

Today, with its basic business processes and supporting metrics now in place, AFN 

continues to consolidate redundant work across the agency, accelerate crossfunctional integration, eliminate gaps, embrace innovation, ensure accountability 

and identify continuous process improvements. AFN is focused on building strong 

customer partnerships and a shared services culture. 
483

The new Financial Services (ABA) organization streamlined the agency's financial 

functions and provides an analytic, resource-based support to the agency's 

financial decision-making processes. The Finance team has instituted and agencywide cost efficiency program and provides the accounting oversight to achieve an 

annual goal of an unqualified audit opinion. 

The new Acquisitions and Business Services (ACQ) leads the FAA's Strategic 

Sourcing for the Acquisition of Various Equipment and Supplies (SAVES) 

Program. SAVES is used by all FAA lines of business, staff offices, regions, and 

centers to purchase selected commodities at a lower cost while maintaining or 

improving the quality of those products. In FY 2012, the program generated a $28 

million savings for the agency, and it has been expanded to address a wider range 

of the FAA's annual spending. 

AQC awarded a new SAVES contract to provide commercial off-the-shelf 

software from 45 different software manufacturers. The program is expected to 

more than double the annual savings within the next two years with the addition of 

two new contract vehicles. 

Together, the Finance and Acquisition organizations assisted the Agency in 

identifYing contract and other spending reductions to achieve $637 million in 

sequester reductions across the Agency. These organizations continue to ensure 

that major system investments stay on schedule and cost. 

Under AFN, Regions and Center Operations (ARC) has accelerated efforts to 

identify excess real property for disposal, termination, replacement, renovation or 

transfer. Agency-wide space standards were implemented to gain additional 

efficiencies and minimize occupancy and overall costs. ARC continues to drive 

sustainability activities in our facilities and reduce the agency's footprint. 

ARC is on track to provide the agency with additional cost savings in FY 2013 and 

2014 through the following space consolidations: 

Safety Office into the Western Pacific Regional Office (March 2013) 

National Flight Simulator Program Office into the Southern Regional Office 

(May 2013) 

Lexington Flight Standards District Office into the New England Regional 

Office (June 2013) 

LAX Basin (FY 2013) and System Support Center (FY 2014) into the 

Western Pacific Regional Office. 
484

As the agency's IT functions continue to be realigned and centralized under AFN's 

Information Services (AIO), the cost efficiencies and savings will be reinvested 

into improving mission IT services. In FY 2013, AIO is on track to achieve $36 

million in IT Savings, over a 10 percent reduction, while improving operational 

and organizational efficiency, increasing customer service and satisfaction, and 

adopting and adapting to emerging technology. AIO achieved these cost savings by 

consolidating duplicative programs, realigning its resources to better meet 

customer needs, and seeking more effective solutions to agency requirements. 

IT efficiencies have centered on initiatives and mandates, such as: 

Cloud computing 

Enterprise Architecture alignment in both the National Airspace (NAS) and 

non-NAS environments 

Consolidating data centers 

Deployment of mobile devices with access to FAA data and information 

More effective and efficient IT solution delivery 

Streamlined information system security protection and response by the 

Cyber Security Management Center and consolidated Information System 

Security (ISS) personnel. 

Additional IT improvements are underway including: contract consolidation in 

ISS, Solution Delivery (Software development and licensing), and helpdesk 

services. The expected savings will be reinvested in the full implementation of 

cloud computing, Electronic Messaging Services (EMS), and critical air traffic 

programs such as ASK-ME. 
485

FAA REORGANIZATION 

Pastor-I 5 

ATO/Ops 

QUESTION: The budget proposes to reorganize FAA's structure by combining 

en route and terminal services. FAA underwent a major 

reorganization two years ago when the Air Traffic Organization 

program management office and the shared services 

ANSWER: 

organization were created. What's the benefit of combining En 

Route and Terminal services? What plans do you have to 

combine these services in the field? 

In 2010, the FAA embarked upon Destination 2025, our long-term strategic vision 

for transforming the national aviation system and our agency. In support of that 

vision, we launched the FAA's Foundation for Success with the key initiative to 

improve internally shared services to streamline functions to ensure that they are 

delivered as effectively and efficiently as possible. This transformation involved 

centralizing functions across the Air Traffic Organization (ATO), including: 

• Mission Support, created in 2010, resulted in shared operational and 

administrative support allowing operational units to concentrate on core 

mission; 

• The Program Management Office, created in 2012, resulted in streamlined 

processes, reduced redundancies, consistent program integration, and 

improved program agility; 

• Safety and Technical Training, consolidated in 2012, resulted in increased 

efficiency in critical delivery of timely technical training that addresses 

real-time safety issues; and 

• Management Services, created in 2012, resulted in streamlined, centralized 

administrative and business processes, and policies that enable sustained 

organizational performance. 

Consolidation of Terminal Services and En Route and Oceanic Services is the final 

step in actualizing the needed organizational structure and more efficient roles. 

Implementation of this merger will take place on October 6,2013, creating one 

service unit, Air Traffic Services, AJT. 
486

Benefits of combining: 

• Consolidated Air Traffic Services organization is better able to safely and 

efficiently implement NextGen technologies. 

• Operational and programmatic priorities aligned to deliver seamless services 

and holistic solutions to National Airspace System users, with increased 

awareness of operational challenges and improved ability to prioritize 

activities and efficiently resolve issues that may arise. 

• Single Air Traffic operational voice improves collaboration with key 

customers in critical, challenging markets, and eliminates oversight 

duplication of efforts and resources. 

• Air Traffic Organization is able to fully actualize the new shared services 

organizations benefits. 

Field realignment will occur at the Service Area Level. The three existing ATO 

Service Areas and affected terminal and en route facilities will be realigned and 

combined geographically into North and South configurations within each Service 

Area. 
487

FAA REORGANIZA nON 

Pastor-l 6 

ATO/Ops 

QUESTION: The budget proposes to reorganize FAA's structure by 

combining en route and terminal services. FAA 

underwent a major reorganization two years ago when the 

Air Traffic Organization program management office and 

the shared services organization were created. Describe 

the outreach and consultation that FAA management has 

done with the controller and technician workforce? 

ANSWER: 

The FAA provided notification to the National Air Traffic Controller 

Association (NATCA), the Professional Aviation Safety Specialists (PASS), 

and other unions that represent employees of the Air Traffic Organization. 

If requested by the unions, and, if required by an applicable collective 

bargaining agreement, the Agency is prepared to bargain the impact and 

implementation of the merger. 
488

Pastor-I7 

APL 

AL TERNA TIVE FUELS RESEARCH AND CLEEN 

QUESTION: 

ANSWER: 

Over the last few years, this Subcommittee has provided 

increased funding to advance the FAA's research on 

alternative fuels and to support the CLEEN program. 

Describe the next milestones that will be reached in the 

development of alternative fuels 

The FAA's primary role in development and deployment of alternative jet fuels 

that are a drop-in replacement to fuels derived from petroleum is to support fuel 

testing, facilitate fuel approval by ASTM International, conduct environmental 

analyses, and facilitate information exchange among stakeholders via the 

Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI). CAAFI is comprised 

of approximately 300 stakeholders from government, the aviation industry, fuel 

suppliers, and universities. 

The FAA is addressing development barriers and facilitating fuel approval by 

conducting rig and engine tests of promising novel alternative jet fuels through the 

Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) program. Analyses to 

understand environmental benefits, technological feasibility and economic costs of 

candidate fuels are also underway by government, industry and academic 

researchers within the Center of Excellence program. 

Performance testing of novel alternative jet fuels is currently under way by three 

engine manufacturers. Test data will begin to be available this fall for compilation 

into research reports for each type of novel jet fuel. These reports must undergo 

peer review and any technical issues must be resolved in order for the fuel to be 

considered for approval. The fuels being tested and under consideration by ASTM 

International for approval include fully synthetic kerosene that does not require 

blending with conventional jet fuel, Alcohol to Jet (A TJ) fuel, pyrolysis jet fuel 

and jet fuels from sugars manufactured by thermochemical and biological 

processes. 
489

Pastor-l8 

APL 

AL TERNA TIVE FUELS RESEARCH AND CLEEN 

QUESTION: 

ANSWER: 

Over the last few years, this Subcommittee has provided 

increased funding to advance the FAA's research on 

alternative fuels and to support the CLEEN program. How 

soon will technologies under development in the CLEEN be 

ready for commercial application? What are FAA's plans 

to form a second phase of the CLEEN program? 

To date, the Continuous Lower Energy, Emissions and Noise (CLEEN) Program 

has completed five major technology demonstrations, including four ground tests 

and a flight test. One of the tests showed advanced combustor technology that met 

the CLEEN NOx emissions goal, and this technology is now in product 

development with a scheduled entry into service date of2016. 

Based on CLEEN program advances, Boeing has established a technology 

transition team to consider how the Adaptive Trailing Edge technology 

demonstrated in a flight test might be incorporated in future aircraft products. 

In addition to the technology demonstrations referred to above, there are five 

remaining technologies scheduled to be demonstrated in ground and flight tests 

later in 2013 to 2015. These technologies are expected to be included in aircraft 

and engine products planned for entry into service by 2019. 

The second phase of the CLEEN program (CLEEN II) is planned to begin in FY 

2015. A market survey and request for information on potential CLEEN II 

technologies was publicly released on May 9, 2013. The FAA plans to issue a 

draft CLEEN II solicitation in October 2013 and hold a bidder's conference in the 

fall following release ofthe draft solicitation. The FAA plans to issue the final 

solicitation in May 2014. 
490

ALTERNATIVE FUELS RESEARCH AND CLEEN 

Pastor -19 

ANG 

QUESTION: Over the last few years, this Subcommittee has provided 

increased funding to advance the FAA's research on 

alternative fuels and to support the CLEEN program 

ANSWER: 

FAA is also researching the development of unleaded 

aviation gas for general aviation aircraft. What progress 

have you made with that program? 

The FAA research conducted under the Continuous Lower Emissions, Energy 

and Noise (CLEEN) program to study alternative fuels applies to jet fuels only. 

This research is intended to address the carbon footprint and supply security 

concerns of petroleum-derived jet fuel. This is a separate and distinct effort 

from the GA Alternative Fuels research being conducted by the FAA. That 

research is focused on identifying an unleaded replacement fuel for piston 

engine-powered aircraft. The current fuel used by these aircraft, called 100LL 

avgas, contains lead and poses significant environmental concerns due to the 

toxicity of the lead emissions. 

In response to the rapidly increasing concerns expressed by the General 

Aviation community regarding the continued availability of 100LL, the 

Unleaded A VGAS Transition Aviation Rulemaking Committee (UAT ARC) 

was chartered on January 31, 2011, by the Federal Aviation Administration 

Administrator. The final report of the UAT ARC can be found on the FAA 

Avgas website at the following URL: 

http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/avgas/ in the Archived Articles section. 

The UAT ARC final report recommended that the FAA collaborate with 

industry to establish an unleaded avgas fuel evaluation and testing program that 

would facilitate the development, approval and deployment of a replacement 

fuel for 100LL that would have the least possible impact on the existing fleet of 

aircraft. It was recommended that this program rely on the vast experience of 

the FAA William J. Hughes Technical Center to perform this testing. 
491

Past GA Alternative Fuels research conducted by the FAA supported the 

evaluation of more than 279 fuel formulations for their octane properties in 

laboratory experiments and anti-detonation performance in test engines. The 

approach was to facilitate industry evaluation of the anti-detonation 

performance of unleaded avgas alternatives by investigating the interaction of 

various chemical and metal additives with various base fuel formulations. 

Valuable data was collected on the interaction of the tested additives and base 

fuels, on the performance differences between leaded and unleaded fuels, and 

on the actual octane levels of 100LL fuel. This research resulted in the 

development of industry standard detonation analysis techniques, including 

sensor equipment, data acquisition systems, and analysis algorithms that will 

be incorporated into standard detonation testing procedures to be employed in 

future testing. Knowledge gained regarding the detonation performance 

between leaded and unleaded fuels will be used in the development and 

application of test methods, procedures, and standards to evaluate and certifY 

new candidate fuels. 

2 

The NextGen - Alternative Fuels for GA Research Program will build upon 

these past research accomplishments and support the development of new, 

unleaded fuels that can be safely used on most of the existing fleet of piston 

engine-powered aircraft. Recent research conducted by the FAA in this regard 

supported the establishment of a new, lower lead content fuel grade called 

100VLL, provided data and information on the fuel octane requirements of the 

existing fleet of aircraft, helped to define a minimum lead content for the 

existing lOOLL avgas, and established emissions testing capability for future 

evaluation of unleaded avgas formulations. Future planned research will 

provide technical data that will allow an assessment of the performance of the 

new unleaded fuels on the many configurations and designs of existing aircraft. 

This effort will support industry's goal to deploy an unleaded avgas that will 

have the least possible impact on the existing fleet. 
492

QUESTION: 

ANSWER: 

FUTURE FACILITIES 

Pastor -20 

ANG 

The budget request includes a total of $245 million for a new 

integrated air traffic controlfacility in New York. Of this 

amount, $10 million is requested in the Facilities and 

Equipment account for planning and $235 million is 

requested in the Immediate Transportation Investments 

program. What happens to the construction schedule for 

the project if funding is not provided this year? 

A-II Capital Budgeting rules require that any budgetary request for facility 

funding support usable segments - otherwise agencies will not be in a position to 

obligate funds until sufficient budgetary authority is available to fund an entire 

usable segment. If the FY 2014 Immediate Transportation Investment funding is 

not received, construction will be postponed. 
493

FUTURE FACILITIES 

Pastor -21 

ATO/ANG 

QUESTIONS: The budget request includes a total of$245 million for a new 

integrated air traffic control facility in New York. Of this 

amount, $10 million is requested in the Facilities and 

Equipment account for planning and $235 million is 

requested in the Immediate Transportation Investments 

program. When does FAA intend to select a site for the new 

facility? What criteria is FAA using to evaluate potential 

sites? 

ANSWER: 

The Federal Aviation Administration currently plans to select a site for the 

New York Integrated Control Facility by 2014. 

In December 2012, the FAA issued a request for information (RFI) to gain insight 

into potential available locations. The RFI expressed FAA's openness to all 

manners ofland transfer resulting in Federal (FAA) ownership of the land. The 

RFI asked about sites that included but were not limited to the following: 34-49 

buildable acres within the state of New York; site not located in 100-year flood 

plain or in localized flood-prone area; site is flat, with less than eight percent 

slopes; water table is at depth greater than 10 feet below average grade; site has no 

history of hazardous material contamination; site does not have existing easements 

within the property or along its perimeter; utilities available within reasonable 

distance; existing road access relatively close to the site; and high level of qualityof-life. The RFI was issued solely as vehicle for gathering information that could 

assist with the planning process. An RFI does not does not constitute a solicitation 

and does not require the Government to issue a future solicitation. FAA plans to 

use the information gathered from the RFI in 2014 to validate requirements and 

possibly inform Environmental and Engineering studies. 
494

Pastor-22 

ATO/OPS 

TERMINAL AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION AND 

REPLACEMENT (TAMR) 

QUESTION : FAA is also in the midst of updating and replacing the 

terminal automation systems at 11 medium to large 

TRACONs and as many as 90 smaller TRACON facilities 

that are not compliant with ADS-B. Is the program 

adhering to cost and schedule estimates? 

ANSWER: 

Yes. The program is tracking to the baselined cost estimates and has 

recently achieved two significant milestones ahead of schedule (see table 

below). At Philadelphia, the existing STARS system was replaced with the 

latest generation system in October 2012. At Dallas, the CARTS system 

was replaced with STARS in April, 2013. 

Philadelphia 

There are installations continuing at Northern California TRACON (NCT), 

Atlanta TRACON (A80), and Miami TRACON (MIA). Please see the 

Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) milestones for FY 2013 and FY 2014 

listed below: 
495

Initial Operating Capability on 

second major software build 

Dallas (E2) September 2014 
496

Pastor-23 

ATO/OPS 

TERMINAL AUTOMATION MODERNIZATION AND 

REPLACEMENT (TAMR) 

QUESTION: With regard to the replacement of smaller lIE facilities, 

how much consolidation do you anticipate? When will 

FAA make a decision on consolidation plans? 

ANSWER: 

At this time, there are no approved plans to consolidate specific HE 

facilities. In the Administrator's last hearing with the Aviation 

Subcommittee on July 17,2013, it was stated that the FAA plans to brief the 

subcommittee members over the next couple of months to discuss 

consolidation plans. 
497

CONTROLLER FURLOUGHS 

Granger-Ol 

ATOIOPS 

QUESTION: Has the FAA issued any written orders, directives or 

instructions to air traffic control towers, TRACONs, or 

en route centers about how they should implement the 

furloughs due to the sequester? Has the FAA made these 

orders, directives and instructions available to the 

public? If so, please provide copies to the committee. 

ANSWER: 

FAA Human Resources Policy Manual (HRPM) EMP 1.27 contains agency 

policies governing furloughs for agency employees. In addition to the 

agency policy, negotiated agreements exist between FAA and its labor 

organizations for both the implementation of the furlough policy and 

implementation of the FY 2013 furlough. Together, these documents 

provide the required written procedures for implementing the furloughs. 

The procedures for implementing the controller furloughs are contained in a 

negotiated Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between FAA and the 

National Air Traffic Controllers Association dated March 12,2013. Agency 

policies and negotiated agreements are not normally provided to the public 

as a matter of practice, however copies are available (attached). 

Attachments: 

HRPM EMP 1.27 Furlough Policy 

FAA-NATCA Furlough Policy MOU 

FAA-NATCA FY 2013 Furlough Implementation MOU 
498

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE 

NATIONAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION AND 

THE FEDERAL A VIATION ADMINISTRATION 

This agreement is made by and between the National Air Traffic Controllers Association 

("NATCA" or "Union") and the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA" or "Agency"), 

collectively known as the "the Parties." This agreement applies to all NATCA 

bargaining unit employees within the Air Traffic Organization (A TO) in the event that 

the Agency proposes a discretionary ("save money" or "non-emergency") furlough 

during fiscal year 2013. The Parties hereby agree to the following terms: 

Section 1. 

Section 2. 

Section 3. 

Section 4. 

During the fiscal year 2013 discretionary ("save money" or "nonemergency") furlough all employees will be furloughed in the same pay 

period(s), for an equal amount of time not to exceed eight (8) hours per 

pay period. The Agency at the national level will determine the pay 

period(s) during which employees shall be furloughed. Furloughs days 

shall be eight (8) consecutive hours in a pay period for each employee, 

until the Agency's furlough requirements have been satisfied, except as 

adjusted by circumstances delineated elsewhere in this Agreement. 

In the event of furloughs of less than a full shift, the hours shall be 

scheduled consecutively. At the election of the employee, the remaining 

hours can be worked or can be accounted for either by taking leave or by 

scheduling the residual hours elsewhere in the workweek. 

The Parties at the local level shall jointly determine the days and/or shifts 

in each pay period where employees are to be furloughed. Procedures for 

selecting and relinquishing of furlough days shall be negotiated at the 

local level. Local negotiations shall commence upon receipt of notification 

to the Union at the National level and shall be completed no later than 

fifteen (15) days following such notification. In the event the Parties 

cannot reach agreement by that date, the outstanding issues shall be 

elevated to the appropriate Regional Vice President (RVP) and their 

corresponding Agency official for resolution within forty-eight (48) hours. 

The RVP and corresponding Ageney official shall finalize an agreement 

within seven (7) days of elevation. 

Furloughs for employees shall not occur any earlier than the first full pay 

period following the thirty (30) days Notice provided to employees. In no 

case will NATCA bargaining unit employees covered by this Agreement 

be furloughed in a pay period earlier than other ATO employees. 

In the event that the Agency's proposed furlough is revised after an 

employee provides a reply, thc Parties wiH meet at the Nationalleve! to 

bargain the impact of the revision. 
499

Section 5. 

Section 6. 

Section 7. 

The Agency shall approve the exchange of furlough days using the 

provisions contained within Article 32. Section 5 of the ;\'ATCA/FAA 

Collective Bargaining Agrecment dated October 1. 2009. 

Staffing and workload permitting. employees shall be allowed to change 

their scheduled furlough day to anothcr day within the same pay period. 

In order to minimize the effects of the discretionary furlough, the Agency 

agrees to the following: 

- Employees may volunteer to accept a higher number of days for 

which they will be furloughed. not to exceed twenty-two (22) days 

during the furlough period. 

- Provide part-time schedules to those employees who volunteer. to 

the maximum extent practicable. 

- To the maximum extent practicable. approve any requests for 

Leave Without Pay. including those previously denied after 

confirming with the employee that such requests are still valid. 

Should an employee volunteer to accept additional days in a non-pay 

status using the provisions specified above. that person must designate the 

name(s) of the bargaining unit employee(s) within hislher facility/office 

that will have their furlough reduced by a corresponding number of day(s). 

Reduction offurlough days for other facility employees will occur within 

the same pay period as the mitigations. 

Section 8. All individuals who are currently assigned to a facility shall be subject to 

distribution of furlough days at their facility. 

Section 9. In the event scheduled fi.!rlough days are cancelled with insufficient notice 

for an employee to return to duty, the employee will be allowed to 

substitute annual leave, credit hours. compensatory time. or leave without 

pay for the cancelled fi.!rlough day(s). 

Section 10. In the event that the Agency cancels scheduled furlough dayslhours. the 

Agency shall advise the RVP and their corresponding Agency official with 

the facility/office. the names of the employees. and the number of 

days/hours at the end of each pay period. This information will be sent 

electronically to the Union within seventy-two (72) hours of the end of the 

pay period. 

Section t 1. The Agency has determined that overtime will not be used to replace 

any furloughed employee. 
500

Section 12. The Agency shall provide the Union at the national level with a report at 

the end of each pay period, itemized by facility/office, including the 

names of the employees who worked additional hours outside their 

scheduled basic workweek and/or workday. This information will be sent 

electronically to the Union within seventy-two (72) hours of the end of the 

pay period. 

Section 13. Prior to finalizing a decision to contract out work performed by bargaining 

unit employees, the Agency shall comply with the applicable provisions of 

thc collective bargaining agreement(s). 

Section 14. At those facilities whcre no leave exigency exists. prior to the cancellation 

of approved leave the Parties will meet at the national level in an attempt 

to avoid this action. 

Section 15. During the furlough period. should an employee's furlough day(s) fall 

during the employee's response timeframc for proposed disciplinary or 

adverse action, or during the timeframe for filing or responding to a 

grievance, the associated deadlines under the appropriate collective 

bargaining agreements shall be extended by the number of furlough days. 

Section 16. The Parties agree to develop ajoint "Question & Answer" document (0 be 

attached and read in conjunction with this Agreement. 

Signed on the fA Ih day of March 2013. 

ForNATCA: 

4//-

/------:--

Phil Barbarello 

J/r]" tt:// Jl!in~j4tPYv't? f!;- II 

Anna Jancewicz rJ 

. . / 

;(c'C4 ,/' (.. G <//c </ -X5,----·-· .. --~-

SheJly Mlakar . 

1M / 

H Mich\d13rown 
501

AGENCY HEAD REVIEW 

Ronald S. James, Executive Director Date 

Employee and Labor Management Relations 
502

ATO Furlough Implementation NATCA/FAA MOU -3/1112013 

Joint Questions and Answers 

Ql: Wbat is the maximum amount of time the Agency will require an employee to 

be furlougbed in a pay period? 

AI: Eight (8) hours, however there are other provisions in the MOU that allow an 

employee to elect to increase the amount of time they are furloughed in a pay period. 

Q2: Can an employee be sebeduled for I-bour per day of furlougb, totaling 8-bours 

for the pay period? 

A2: No. The time an employee is to be furloughed each pay period must be scheduled on 

the same day, in consecutive hours. 

Q3: If an employee's scheduled workday is in excess of eight (8) hours, will they still 

only be furloughed in increments of eigbt (8) hours? 

A3: Yes. However, an employee on an Alternative Work Schedule (AWS) may choose 

to work the hours that are in excess of the eight (8) on the furlough day, use leave to 

account for the remaining hours, or reschedule those work hours to another day during 

the pay period. 

Q4: When should tbe local parties begin negotiating the local procedures to 

implement the furlough? 

A4: The Parties at the National level will ensure that all facilities are made aware 

through normal communication channels. 

Q5: What are the expectations for tbe local negotiations? 

A5: It is expected that these negotiations will be similar to those conducted for annual 

leave or the basic watch schedule. However, the time lines to accomplish these 

negotiations are condensed given the circumstances. 

Q6: Will the "Red Book" provisions referenced in Section 5 of the MOU apply to all 

bargaining unit employees in tbe ATO? 

A6: Yes. The Parties have adopted these provisions for all bargaining unit employees 

within the ATO. 

Q7: Will the furlough include people who are on a detail away from the facility? 

A7: Yes. 
503

Q8: Can an employee volunteer to take additional furlough days so that someone 

else will serve less furlough days? 

A8: Yes. An employee may volunteer to accept additional furlough days not to exceed a 

total of twenty-two (22) furlough days. The request must designate the namc(s) of the 

bargaining unit employee(s) whose furlough day(s) they are volunteering to accept. 

Reduction of another employee's furlough time must occur in eight hour increments, in 

the same pay period, and in the same facility/office. 

Q9: If an employee volunteers to work a part-time schedule can the employee 

designate other bargaining unit employees that will have their furlough days 

reduced as a result? 

A9: Yes. After accounting for their own furlough day, the additional days spent in a nonpay non-duty status can be applied toward specified bargaining unit employees whose 

furlough requirement will be reduced as a result. Reduction of other employees' furlough 

time must occur in eight hour increments, in the same pay period, and in the same 

facility/office. 

QI0: If an employee is granted LWOP in excess of their furlough requirement for 

the pay period, can the employee designate other bargaining unit employees that 

will have their furlough days reduced as a result? 

AIO: Yes. After accounting for their own furlough day, the additional days spent in a 

L WOP status can be applied toward specified bargaining unit employees whose furlough 

requirement will be reduced as a result. Reduction of other cmployees' furlough time 

must occur in eight hour increments, in the same pay period, and in the same 

facility/office. 

Qll: What is "insufficient notice" described in Section 9 ofthe MOU? 

All: Each situation will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. As an example, if an 

employee has departed on an out-of-town trip, is subsequently advised that their furlough 

day(s) have been cancelled and the employee cannot reasonably be expected to return to 

the duty station, the employee will be granted leave. This is a specific exception to 

negotiated leave approval procedures. 

Q12: Can an employee convert scheduled furlough days to leave if the furlough is 

cancelled? 

A12: No. Leave approval is still subject to negotiated procedures, with the exception of 

the circumstances covered in Question 11. 

Q13: If I had scheduled a furlough day on a day that I previously had approved 

annual leave and the furlough is cancelled, will I return to approved annual leave? 
504

A13: Yes. 

Q14: Can a supervisor or manager cancel approved annual leave during the 

furlough period? 

A14: Prior to the canccllation of approved annual leave, facility management must refer 

the matter to the national level. The Parties at the national level will discuss in an attempt 

to avoid this situation. 

Q15: Can employees work credit hours and/or compensatory time to replace an 

employee on a furlough day? 

A15: No 

Q16: Can an employee l-be scheduled" called in, or held over on overtime to cover 

for another employee that has been scheduled off on a furlough day? 

A16: No. 

Q17: Does the extension of timelines described in Section 15 of the MOU apply only 

to bargaining unit employees'! 

A17: No. The timeline extensions apply to both bargaining unit employees and the 

Agency. 
505

Human Resources Policy Manual (HRPM) 

Volume 1: Employment 

EMP-1.27 

Furlough 

This policy applies to: (1) Non·bargaining unit employees/positions (2) bargaining unit 

employees/positions, except where the applicable collective bargaining agreement contains conflicting 

provisions or bargaining requirements have not been met. 

Chapter established: 01/25/2012 

This version effective: 03/26/2012 

Background Information: This version replaces EMP-l.27 dated 01/25/2012. Pen and ink changes 

have been made to this policy chapter. 

Pursuant to Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Act of 1996, § 347, Pub. 

l. No. 104-50, 109 Stat 436 (Nov. 15, 1995), codified at 49 U.S.C. § 40122(g) (hereinafter "DOT Act"), 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has the authority to develop and implement a new personnel 

management system that addresses the unique demands on the agency's workforce. The FAA's policy 

on furlough is set out in this Chapter, consistent with the FAA Personnel Management System (FAA 

PMS) Chapter I, Staffing, Paragraph 14, which addresses the current complexities of the FAA's 

operational structure including numerous pay systems, bargaining units, and position classifications. 

Use this policy chapter in conjunction with: HRPM Reference Material: Downsizing and Staffing 

Adjustment Options, HRPM Reference Material: Request for Coordination and Clearance of a Furlough, 

HRPM Reference Material: Save Money Furlough - Questions and Answers 

1. Purpose 

2. Scope 

3. Definitions 

4. Roles and Responsibilities 

5. Avoiding or Minimizing "Save Money" Furlough 

6. "Save Money" Furlough Approval Procedures 

7. "Save Money" Furlough Coverage and Duration 

8. Employees Released for "Save Money" Furlough 

9. "Save Money" Furlough Procedural Rights 

10. Benefits 

11. Documenting a Furlough 

1. Purpose: The purpose of this Chapter is to establish and implement the FAA's policies and 

procedures governing furloughs within the FAA. This Chapter also identifies certain discretionary 

management tools that may assist in avoiding a furlough and provides specific examples of the measures 

that may be taken to mitigate the effects of a furlough. 

2. Scope: This policy applies to all FAA employees serving on permanent excepted appointments. 

This policy does not apply to: 

placement of an employee serving on an intermittent, part-time, on-call, or seasonal basis in a 

non-pay and non-duty status in accordance with conditions established at time of appOintment; 

a change in an employee's official work schedule from full-time to other- than-full-time, when 

applicable; 

Page 1 of7 
506

a change in the number of hours worked in a part-time tour of duty; and 

a furlough of more than 30 continuous calendar days, or of more than 22 discontinuous 

workdays. 

3. Definitions: 

a. Days refer to calendar days unless specified otherwise. 

b. Excepted Employees: In the context of "Emergency Shutdown or Lapse of 

Appropriations/Authorization Furlough" the term "excepted" refers to employees whose positions are 

funded/authorized through appropriations/authorization but are nonetheless excepted from a furlough 

because they perform work that, by law, may continue to be performed during a lapse in 

appropriations/authorization. Excepted employees include those who perform emergency work 

involving the safety of human life or the protection of property or those who perform other types of 

excepted work. 

c. Furlough is a non-disciplinary action placing an employee in a temporary non-duty and non-pay 

status because of lack or work or funds or for other non-disciplinary reasons, such as an emergency 

or a lapse in appropriations or authorization. Employees will receive advance written notice only for 

"save money" furloughs, defined below. 

(1) Save money (or non-emergency) furlough is a discretionary furlough that occurs when the 

FAA's Line of Business/Staff Office ("LOB/SO") has sufficient time to provide adequate 

notification of its furlough plan and the number of furlough days to be implemented. A furlough of 

less than 30 continuous calendar days or less than 22 discontinuous workdays is processed 

using the procedures outlined in FAA Personnel Management System (FAA PMS) Chapter III, 

Performance Management, Paragraph 3(b) and Paragraph 3(1). 

(2) Furlough of more than 30 continuous calendar days or 22 discontinuous workdays is a 

discretionary furlough that occurs when the FAA's LOB/SO has sufficient time to provide 

adequate notification of its furlough plan and number of furlough days to be implemented. For a 

furlough of more than 30 days or more than 22 workdays, the FAA will implement its Reductionin-Force policy as outlined in HRPM EMP-1.17, FAA Reduction-in-Forca (RIF). 

(3) Emergency (Shutdown) or Lapse of Appropriation (Authorization) Furlough: In the 

event that funds are not available due to a lapse in appropriations or authorization, a "shutdown" 

furlough may occur. A shutdown furlough is necessary when the FAA no longer has the 

necessary funds or authority to operate and must shut down those activities which are not 

excepted, pursuant to applicable laws and regulations. 

In the context of shutdown furloughs, the term "excepted" is used to refer to employees whose 

positions are funded/authorized through appropriations/authorization but are nonetheless 

excepted from a furlough because they perform work that, by law, may continue to be performed 

during a lapse in appropriations/authorization. 

Excepted employees include those who perform emergency work involving the safety of human 

life or the protection of property or those who perform other types of excepted work. Based on 

the nature of an emergency or lapse of appropriation/authorization furlough, no advance notice 

will be provided. 

(4) Extended Emergency Due to Act of God or Unforeseeable Circumstances: 

In the event of an emergency due to severe or hazardous conditions, disruption of public 

services, or other emergency situation, it may be necessary to furlough non-emergency 

employees. Such an action places on employee in a non-duty, non-pay status for the duration of 

the furlough. Since a furlough based on "unforeseeable circumstances," such as sudden 

Page 2 of7 
507

breakdowns in equipment, acts of God, or sudden emergencies requiring the Agency to 

immediately curtail activities, no advance notice will be provided. 

(5) Furlough Area: The furlough area is the entire FAA, individual lines of business/staff offices 

(LOBs/SOs), or a subcomponent within a LOB/SO, or any combination thereof, as described in 

the business case requesting furlough approval, see Paragraph 6b of this Chapter, and approved 

by the Administrator. 

4. Roles and Responsibilities: Each responsible party will ensure the provisions of this policy and 

procedures are conducted in a fair and equitable manner without regard to race, color, religion, sex, age, 

national origin, marital status, political affiliation, genetic testing, physical handicap, personal favoritism or 

sexual orientation. 

a. FAA Administrator: 

Provides written approval or disapproval of all requests for furlough. 

b. Assistant Administrator for Human Resource Management: 

Has overall responsibility for FAA human resources policies related to furloughs; 

Reviews the LOB/SOs' written request for "save money" furlough approval (See Reference 

Material: Request for Coordination and Clearance of a Furlough); 

Forwards the LOB/SOs' business case request for furlough approval, with AHR's written 

recommendation, to the FAA Administrator for approval/disapproval of all "save money" 

furloughs; 

Executes the "save money" furlough upon FAA Administrator approval; 

Coordinates with and provides guidance to LOB/SO concerning decisions about furlough 

implementation; 

Provides advice and oversight for implementation of furlough policies and conducts a 

furlough in accordance with this Chapter; 

Ensures compliance with this Chapter and applicable laws and regulations, in coordination 

with the Office of the Chief Counsel (AGC); 

Provides guidance on collective bargaining agreement (CBA) requirements and prepares 

notification to unions; 

Develops Furlough Notices to the employees; 

Ensures that employees are counseled regarding benefits and other information related to a 

furlough; and 

Coordinates with the Assistant Administrator for Civil Rights to ensure MD-715 compliance. 

c. Associate and Assistant Administrators, the Chief Counsel, and the Chief Operating 

Officer for the Air Traffic Organization: As part of its planning, the LOB/SOs must: 

Provide a sound business case requesting furlough approval addressing the factors listed in 

paragraph 6b using the format in Reference Material: Request for Coordination and 

Clearance of a Furlough. 

Coordinate with AHR-1 on planning and requesting approval for implementing a furlough in 

compliance with this policy and in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations and 

applicable collective bargaining provisions; and, 

Monitor the status of furloughs to ensure that time limitations are not exceeded. 

5. Avoiding or Minimizing "Save Money" Furlough: 

a. The LOBs/SOs must consider the following actions in order to avoid or mitigate the effects 

of a furlough: 

Page 30f7 
508

Requesting approval from the Office of Personnel Management to use the Voluntary Early 

Retirement Authority (VERA) which allows permanent employees to retire early; 

Authorizing the use of the Voluntary Separation Incentive Pay (VSIP) to eligible employees to 

voluntarily separate through retirement or resignation. (See HRPM PRE-3.5 Voluntary 

Separation Incentive Payment); 

Supporting/encouraging voluntary actions such as: voluntary changes from full- time to parttime schedules, voluntary resignations or retirements, acceptance of other Federal jobs, 

voluntary pay band/grade reductions (lower band/grade job; pay retention will not apply), 

voluntary placement in furlough status or additional days in furlough status; 

Ensuring that part-time (PT) employees work only the number of hours in their official work 

schedule and/or changing the PT employee's official work schedule to one with fewer hours; 

Offering employees within the affected organization the opportunity to volunteer for 

involuntary RIF separations (these volunteers receive separation benefits that are the same 

as those who are identified for involuntary separation through RIF); 

Implementing hiring and/or promotion freezes; 

Terminating temporary appointments; 

Terminating reemployed annuitants; 

Curtailing overtime, except in emergency cases; and 

Implementing furlough on authorized holidays. 

b. Other Actions: Furlough of employees is based on the assumption that the employees in the 

organization are satisfactory employees who are fully qualified, able and performing the work of their 

assigned position. It is management's responsibility to promptly take appropriate actions to address 

employee conduct, unsatisfactory performance, or medical/physical qualifications as issues arise 

before furlough procedures are applied. A furlough is not an appropriate avenue for addressing 

performance and/or conduct issues. However, the fact that actions to address such issues (conduct, 

performance, etc.) may be in process at the time a furlough is being carried out will not prevent an 

employee from being furloughed if the ongoing performance or conduct process is not finalized prior 

to the planned furlough. 

6. "Save Money" Furlough Approval Procedures 

a. The LOB/SOs must submit a written business case requesting furlough approval to AHR-1 in 

accordance with this policy. 

b. Requests must include the following information: (Reference Material: Request for Coordination 

and Clearance of a Furlough provides the sample format for the required information.) 

Location, Organizational Unit, and Furlough Area (FAA, LOB/SO, or subcomponent of 

LOB/SO). 

Proposed number of furlough days for each position. 

Proposed effective date of the furlough and furlough time period. 

Number of pOSitions affected (to include the pay plan, series, and pay band/grade). 

The activity(ies) taken to mitigate the furlough. Please refer to paragraph 5 for the listing of 

mitigating factors. (Provide explanation and documentation for personnel action(s) taken). 

Reason for Furlough (Cite specific mission-related reason(s) supporting the request for 

implementing a furlough). 

Furlough savings (salaries and other costs avoided by the proposed action). 

Furlough costs (costs associated with mitigating the furlough such as severance pay, VSIP, 

unemployment compensation, relocation costs, etc.). 

Collective bargaining agreement (CBA) requirements (include all applicable CBAs and 

requirements for each). 

Possible long-term and short-term consequence(s)limpact on the LOB/SOs mission, if a 

furlough is not approved. 

Page 4 of 7 
509

c. AHR-1 will: 

Review the LOB/SOs' written business case requesting furlough approval and forward the 

request, with AHR's written recommendation, to the Administrator. 

Upon approval of a furlough by the Administrator, AHR-1 will provide advice, guidance, and 

coordination to the LOB/SOs in implementing the furlough. 

7. "Save Money" Furlough Coverage and Duration: A "save money" furlough is a discretionary 

non-emergency furlough in that the FAA/LOB/SO has sufficient time to provide adequate notification of its 

furlough plan and the number of furlough days to be implemented. 

a. The LOB/SO, in coordination with AHR-1, will determine when a furlough is necessary. 

b. All employees within the defined furlough area, as set out in the LOB/SO's business case, and 

approved by the Administrator will be furloughed. 

c. The LOB/SO and AHR must determine when/for how long the furlough will be in effect. 

8. Employees Released for "Save Money" Furlough. All positions approved for a furlough will be 

notified. Employees in the same furlough area will be notified of their pending furlough and the dates 

they will be placed in furlough status at the same time. 

The LOB/SO and their servicing HRMO will identify all affected employees, prepare furlough 

proposal letters and decision letters, and administer the furlough action as efficiently as possible. 

9. "Save Money" Furlough Procedural Rights: 

Note: If the employee is covered by a CSA, the provisions of that agreement must be followed. 

At least 30 days advance written proposal notice; 

a. Notice delivery: If the employee is not on dUty or is otherwise unavailable, the notice is 

delivered both by first class mail and by a delivery method in which a signed receipt is 

requested (e.g., express mail delivery or certified mail with a return receipt requested). FAA 

will assume that the employee received a regular mailing 5 (five) days from the day on which 

the notice was sent, and may use that date as the official delivery date, or the date on which 

the employee signed for the express delivery or certified notice, whichever is earlier. 

b. Employee status during notice period: The employee will remain in a duty status 

during the notice period. The employee may be detailed to another location or organization 

(See HRPM EMP-1.15 Temporary Internal Assignment). 

• A reasonable time, but not less than fifteen (15) days, to answer orally and/or in writing or both 

and to furnish affidavits and other documentary evidence in support of the answer; 

• A reasonable amount of official time to review the material relied on to support the proposed 

action; to prepare an answer; and to secure affidavits; 

• Representation by an attorney or other representative; 

After receipt and consideration of employee's timely reply, a written decision and the specific 

reason(s) for the decision will be issued within ten (10) days; 

Appeal the agency's decision to the appropriate authority (employees will be provided 

information concerning appeals related to furloughs in an official letter documenting the furlough 

decision.) 

Bargaining unit employees may elect to grieve the action in accordance with the applicable CBA 

or elect to appeal the action in accordance with this provision, but not both. 

Page 50f7 
510

10. Benefits: Furloughed employees may be eligible for unemployment compensation. Employees are 

solely responsible for contacting their state unemployment office for guidance. Any benefits received are 

the sole responsibility of the employee. 

a. The Work Number: Refer to DOT Fact Sheet on The Work Number (Employment/Income 

Verification Service for DOT Employees) for additional information. 

b. Furlough's Effects on Benefits and Waiting Periods. In most instances, non-pay time under 

short-term furlough will not have a negative impact on retirement or health and life insurance. Nonpay status (which includes furlough, leave without pay, absence without leave, and suspension) is 

credited as follows: 

Career Tenure - the first 30 calendar days of each non-pay period is creditable. 

Probationary Period - all workdays in a non-pay status is creditable. 

Qualifications - there is no requirement to extend qualifying periods by the amount of nonpay time. 

• Time-in-grade - non-pay status is creditable. 

Retirement - up to 6 months service in a non-pay status per calendar year is creditable. 

• Health Benefits - enrollment continues for up to 365 days in a non-pay status. 

• Life Insurance - coverage continues for up to 12 consecutive months in a non-pay status. 

Within Grade Increases - 2 workweeks non-pay status in a waiting period is creditable for 

advancement to steps 2, 3, and 4 of the General Schedule; 4 workweeks for advancement to 

steps 5, 6, and 7; and 6 workweeks for advancement to steps 8,9, and 10. 

• Leave Accruals - a full-time employee does not earn annual or sick leave during a pay period 

when he or she reaches 80 hours of non-pay time. 

11. Documenting a Furlough: An SF-50, "Notification of Personnel Action", must be prepared for each 

individual subject to furlough. An SF-50 is required for the placament in furlough status and the return to 

duty. 

Related Information 

Policies 

EMP-1.9 Selection Priority 

EMP-1.12 Employment of Veterans and Service Members 

EMP-1.22 Career Transition Program 

PRE-3.5 Voluntary Separation Incentive Payment 

Order 1350.15C Records Organization, Transfer and Destruction 

Reference Materials 

Downsizing and Staffing Adjustment Options 

Process and Considerations Tool- Reorganization, Realignment, and Consolidation 

Request for Coordination and Clearance of a Furlough 

Save Money Furlough - Questions and Answers 

DOT Fact Sheet on The Work Number (Employment/Income Verification Service for DOT 

Employees) 

Website 

The Work Number (Employment/Income Verification Service for DOT Employees) 

Page 6 of7 
511

History Revision Log 

Date Revision 

October 16,1998 Established HRPM EMP-l, 17 Downsizing and Staffing Adjustments which refers to 

FAA Order 3350.2C Staffing Adjustments and Reduction In Force for nonbargaining unit employees and positions, The Order covered downsizing, making 

staffing adjustments, and guidance for planning and conducting a reduction-in-force, 

October 17,1994 Established FAA Order 3350.2C Staffing Adjustments and Reduction In Force which 

canceled FAA Order 3350.28 Staffing Adjustments and Reduction In Force, 

April 2, 1981 Established FAA Order 3350.28 Staffing Adjustments and Reduction In Force, 

Page 7017 
512

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN TIlE 

NATIONAL AIR. TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS ASSOCIATION AND 

THE FEDERAL A VIA nON ADMINISTRATION 

This agreement is made by and between the National Air Traffic Controllers Association 

("NATCA" or "Union") and the Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA" or "Agency"), 

collectively known as the "the Parties." This agreement applies to all NA TCA 

bargaining units and bargaining lIllit employees for the implementation of HRPM EMP 

1.27 dated March 26, 2012. The Parties hereby agree to the fullowing tenns: 

Section 1. The Agency shall provide the Union with notice ofits intent to engage in a 

discretionary ("save money" or "non-emergency") furlough of employees 

who are represented by the Union, at least forty-eight (48) hoW"S prior to 

the Agency's distribution of furlough notices to employees. The notice 

will contain at a minimum. the proposed number of employees that will be 

furloughed and the proposed amount of days andlor hoW"S associated with 

each furlough. Following the notice, the Agency and the Union will 

immediately begin negotiations at the National level for procedures the 

Agency will follow in the implementation of the furlough. 

Section 2. In case of a furlough involving an emergency shutdown or for extended 

emergency due to an Act of God or unforeseeable circumstances, the 

Agency will provide notice and opportunity to bargain in accordance with 

the Parties' collective bargaining agreement. 

Section 3. In scheduling a discretionary ("save money" or "non-emergency") 

furlough. for employees the furlough requirement may be expressed in 

tenns of days or hoW"S. An employee's current work schedule, including 

A WS, detennines the number of hours in their workday. For purposes of 

equity, employees will not be furloughed more than eight (8) hours in a 

workday. 

S~tion 4. A furlough period is defined as beginning upon the Agency's 

implementation of a furlough and ending upon the Agency's cessation of 

the furlough. 

S~tion 5. The Agency shall provide the Union with a full and complete list of all 

employees deemed "excepted" and "Don-excepted" within every 

bargaining unit represented by NATCA for every FAA facility no later 

than the notice to the employees of an emergency (shutdowll) furlough. 

S~tion 6. The Parties agree to develop a joint Q&A to be attached and read in 

conjunction with this Agreement. 
513

Section 7. Whenever a furlough occurs that will result in the employee being placed 

in a nonpay status, an SF-8 will be provided not later than when the 

nonpay status begins. In addition a link will be provided to a filet sheet 

containing infonnation on applying for unemployment benefits. 

Section 8. For furloughs of more than 30 continuous calendar days or more than 22 

work days the RlF procedures contained in the applicable collective 

bargaining agreement(s) shall apply. 

Section 9. The Agency should make efforts toward assuring that employees are 

provided up-to-date and accurate information as warranted. This may be 

done through union-management communication, employee briefings, 

periodic bulletins, newsletters or other means available to the Agency. 

Section 10. For furloughs other than a lapse in Congressional appropriations, the 

provisions contained in the Disciplinaryl Adverse Action article in the 

appropriate collective bargaining agreement shall apply. 

Section 11. When implementing a discretionary ("save money" or ''non-emergency'') 

furlough of 30 days or less, each Line ofBusinesslStaff Office shaH 

engage in pre-decisionaJ involvement with the Union at the corresponding 

level, in considering the following actions in order to avoid or mitigate the 

effects of a furlough: 

a) Request approval from the Office of Personnel Management to use the 

Voluntary Early Retirement Authority (VERA) which allows pennanent 

employees to retire early; 

b) Authorize the use of the Voluntary Separation Incentive Pay (VSIP) to 

eligible employees to voluntarily separate through retirement or 

resignation; 

c) Support/encourage voluntary action such as voluntary changes from 

full-time to part-time schedules. voluntary resignations or retirements, 

acceptance of other Federal jobs. voluntary placement in furlough status or 

additional days in furlough status; 

d) Ensure that part.time employees work only the number of hours in their 

official work schedule andlor changing the PT employee's official work 

schedule to one with fewer hours; 

e) Offer employees with the affected organization the opportunity to 

volunteer for involuntary RIF separations; 

f} Implement hiring and/or promotion freezes; 

2 
514

g) Terminate temporary appointments; 

h) Terminate reemployed annuitants; 

i) Curtail overtime, except in emergency cases; and 

j) Implement furlough on authorized holidays. 

Section 12. For a part-time employee, the furlough requirements shall be prorated by 

computing the furlough days as furlough hours in the same proportion to 

those hours scheduled for full-time employees working 80 hours biweekly, 

based on work schedules. 

Section 13. ff an employee is scheduled to be on L WOP during his or her furlough 

period, the employee may designate any hours andlor days of L WOP as 

furlough time off in order to meet the furlough requirements. 

Section 14. When an employee's pay is insufficient to permit aU deductions to be 

made, the Agency shall foUow the order of precedence for applying 

deductions in compliance with CHCOC PPM·2008·01. 

Seetion 15. An employee is entitled to pay for a holiday so long as he or she is in a 

pay status on either the workday preceding a holiday or the workday 

following a holiday. This applies to the in lieu of holiday as well. 

Section 16. If an employee is unable to use their <'use or lose"~ annual leave due to 

staffing and workload needs during the furlough period, and if shelhe is 

unable to schedule this leave prior to the end of the leave year, such 

annual leave shall be restored. 

SeetioD 17. Employees cannot be required to perform work while in a furlough status. 

Section 18. Absences due to a furlough shall be taken into consideration when 

assessing performance, 

Seetion 19. Employees may utilize Employee Assistance Program (EAP) while in a 

furlough status to obtain creditJfmancial counseling services. 

Section 20. To the extent authorized by law, Agency subsidized programs, including 

but not limited to childcare, transit and parking subsidies, shall not be 

negatively affected by a furlough. 

SectiOD 21. The Agency will make available through the employee website, a letter 

which may be presented to their creditors detailing the length of the 

furlough and the impact on the employee's salary. 

3 
515

Section 22. Any employee on temporary assignment away from the facility/office 

shall be reimbursed for expenses authorized by the FAA TP during the 

furlough period. 

Signed on the 13111 day of February 2013. 

ForNATCA: 

Dean lacopeUi 

4 

For FAA: 

,&", « p;p"." J., Roscoe Ridley Jr. 

~ 

/ / 

(' 

A;nc;HReVieW ~ 

VIS) 2DJ~ 
516

Furlough (Discretionary and Shutdown)- Questions and Answers 

Use in conjunction with: EMP-1.27 Furlough, appropriate Collective Bargaining Agreements and the 

NATCAIFAA Memorandum of Understanding regarding furloughs dated February 13, 2013. 

Chapter 1 - Applicable to all furloughs 

Section A: General 

1, Q. What is a discretionary ("save money". "administrative" or "non-emergency") furlough? 

A. A discretionary ("save money" or "non-emergency") furlough is the placing of an employee in a 

temporary non-duty, non-pay status because of lack of work or funds, or for other non-disciplinary 

reasons. It is a planned event designed to absorb reductions necessitated by downsizing, reduced 

funding, lack of work, or any other event that requires the agency to save money. This kind of furlough is 

"non-emergency" in that the agency has sufficient time to reduce spending and therefore give adequate 

notification of its specific furlough plan and how many furlough days or hours will be required for each 

impacted employee. For most employees, there are two basic categories of furloughs, each involving 

different procedures. A furlough of 30 calendar days or less constitutes an adverse action and is subject 

to the procedures as described in the applicable collective bargaining agreement. A furlough of more 

than 30 calendar days constitutes a reduction in force (RIF) procedures and is subject to the procedures 

as described in the applicable collective bargaining agreement. 

2. Q. What is a shutdown ("emergency") furlough? 

A. A "shutdown" furlough is the placing of an employee in a temporary non-duty, non-pay status in the 

event that funds are not available through an appropriations law or continuing resolution. A shutdown 

furlough is necessary when an agency no longer has the necessary funds to operate and must shut down 

those activities that are not excepted pursuant to the Antideficiency Act. A shutdown furlough might also 

occur due to an "act of God" or other unforeseeable circumstances. 

3. Q. Are there requirements for notification to employees during a furlough? 

A. Notification to employees differ between discretionary and shutdown furloughs. Requirements are 

detailed in the respective sections below. 

4. Q. Mayan employee volunteer to do his or her job on a non-pay basis during a furlough 

period? 

A. No. 

5. Q. What appeal rights apply for employees for a furlough of 30 calendar days or less? 

A. The employee may appeal the deCision to furlough under the provisions of Article 9 of the appropriate 

collective bargaining agreement, to the Merit Systems Protection Board, or through the applicable Equal 

Employment Opportunity procedures. The appeal rights will be outlined in the written notice provided to 

employees. 

6. Q. May employees take other jobs during the furlough period? 

A. Even while on furlough, an individual is an employee of the Federal Govemment. In accordance with 5 

CFR 2635.101(b)(10), (14); 2635.801(c) and FAA Order 3750.7, outside employment in general is 

permitted so long as it neither conflicts with official Government duties and responsibilities nor appears to 

Furlough - Questions and Answers 

Page 1 of 10 
517

do so. Employees are permitted to engage in outside aviation employment so long as the outside 

employer does not conduct activities for which the employee's facility or office has official responsibility. 

Should an employee submit a written request for prior approval, it will be acted upon as soon as possible, 

generally within thirty (30) days of receipt. When the employee accepts outside employment without prior 

approval due to the Agency's failure to respond within thirty (30) days to his/her written request for a 

determination of propriety, the Agency will take this into consideration should disciplinary action later be 

contemplated. 

If prior approval is given and it is later determined that such employment is inconsistent with the 

provisions of Section 1, the following shall apply upon written notification to the employee: 

a. If the outside employment is specifically prohibited by law, the employee shall cease the 

employment immediately. 

b. In all other cases the employee shall cease the employment within fourteen (14) days. 

7. Q. Are individuals working under an Interchange Assignment Agreement (IAA) subject to a 

furlough? 

A. The specific authority for furloughing persons who are working under interchange assignment 

agreements, either inside the Federal government or with other organizations, will depend upon the 

nature of individual agreements, the status of the appointments, and/or the funding arrangements for the 

assignments. As a general rule, the following principles are applicable in determining whether to furlough 

personnel on interchange assignments: 

Personnel from non-Federal organizations on appointments to the FAA are subject to furlough in 

the same manner as other employees. 

Personnel on detail to the FAA from non-Federal organizations may continue working, provided 

that the non-Federal organizations pay the total costs of the detail. 

Personnel on detail to the FAA from non-Federal organizations which share part of the costs of 

detail may continue to work if the Federal portion of the cost was obligated from prior 

appropriations at the time of the IPA mobility agreements. In the event that a furlough takes place 

in the second year of the agreement at which time no funds are appropriated, the assignment 

should be terminated. 

Personnel on detail to the FAA from non-Federal organizations which do not payor share the 

costs of the detail are subject to furlough in the same manner as other employees. 

8. Q. What happens to employees' benefits (e.g., retirement, health benefits, life insurance, leave) 

if they receive temporary appointments in another agency while furloughed? 

A. The leave should be transferred as if the employees had been transferred (See 8-167975, 49 COMP. 

GEN. 383, September 1, 1970). Retirement, health benefits, life insurance, and leave should be handled 

as if the employees had been transferred. 

Section B: Pay and Deductions from Pay 

1. Q. If a furlough begins, will employees receive a paycheck for the last pay period worked prior 

to the furlough? 

A. Yes. 

Furlough - Questions and Answers 

Page 2 of 10 
518

2. Q. If an employee's pay is insufficient to permit all deductions to be made, what is the order of 

precedence that deductions will be made from any salary check that the person may receive? 

A. In general terms, the following deductions are taken from the employee's pay in this order: 1) 

Retirement; 2) Social Security tax; 3) Medicare tax; 4) Federal Income tax; 5) basic health insurance 

premiums (e.g. FEHB); 6) basic life insurance premiums (e.g. FEGLI); 7) State tax; 8) Local tax; 9) 

collection of debts owed to the federal government; 10) court-ordered collections; 11) optional benefits 

(e.g. FEDVIP, FLTCIP, FSA, TSP); 12) other voluntary deductions (e.g. savings bonds, union dues); 13) 

IRS paper levies. 

Section C: Service Credit for Various Purposes: 

1. Q. Is furlough considered a break in service? 

A. No, the employee is in non-pay, non-duty status for those days/hours. However, extended furlough 

may affect the calculation of creditable service for certain purposes. 

2. Q. To what extent will the furlough (non-pay, non-duty status) affect my annual and sick leave 

accruals? 

A. When a full-time employee accumUlates 80 hours in a non-pay status (which includes furlough, leave 

without pay, absence without leave, and suspension), the amount of annual and sick leave that may be 

accrued in that pay period is reduced by the amount of leave the employee would normally earn during 

the pay period When a part-time employee is in a non-pay status, he or she will accrue less annual leave 

and sick leave, since part-time employees earn leave on a pro-rata basis--Le., based on hours in a pay 

status. For purposes of computing accrual rates for annual leave, creditable service for time in a non-pay 

status is limited to an aggregate of 6 months in a calendar year (5 U.S.C. 8332(f». 

3. Q. To what extent does a furlough affect other civil service benefits and programs? 

A. Non-pay status is credited as follows for: 

Permanent (career) tenure - the first 30 calendar days of each non-pay period is creditable 

service. 

Probationary period - an employee's probationary period is not changed due to placement in a 

non-pay status. 

Qualification requirements - If an employee's developmental training is interrupted for thirty (30) 

days or more, the employee shall be granted sufficient training time to attain the level of 

proficiency he/she had at the time of the interruption, prior to the resumption of the remaining 

allotted training hours. 

Time-in-grade requirements - non-pay status is creditable service (applicable for employees in 

the FG Pay Plan). 

Retirement purposes - an aggregate non-pay status of 6 months in any calendar year is 

creditable service. Coverage continues at no cost to the employees while in a non-pay status. 

When employees are in a non-pay status for only a portion of a pay period, their contributions are 

adjusted in proportion to their basic pay (5 U.S.C. 8332 and 8411). The exception would be an 

employee who had substantial time in a non-pay status earlier in the year if the furlough causes 

him or her to have more than six months time in a non-pay status during the calendar year. 

Health benefits - enrollment continues for no more than 365 days in a non-pay status. The nonpay status may be continuous or broken by periods of less than four consecutive months in a pay 

status (5 USC Chapter 89). The agency contribution continues while employees are in a non-pay 

status. The agency is also responsible for advancing the employee's share as well. The 

employee can choose between paying the agency directly on a current basis or having the 

premiums accumulate and to be withheld from his or her pay upon returning to duty. 

Furlough - Questions and Answers 

Page 3 0110 
519

Life insurance - coverage continues for 12 consecutive months in a non-pay status without cost 

to the employees or to the agency (5 U.S.C. Chapter 87). The non-pay status may be continuous 

or it may be broken by a return to duty for periods of less than four consecutive months. If an 

employee is in active duty military status while in non-pay status, FEGLI coverage continues at no 

cost to the employee until time in non-pay status totals 12 months. The employee may elect to 

continue FEGLI coverage for an additional 12 months by paying both the employee and agency 

premiums (Basic coverage) and by paying the entire cost (Optional coverage). Per Section 1102 

of Public Law 110-181, such an election must be made before the end of the first 12 months in 

non-pay status. 

Within-grade/range increases (FG Pay Plan Only) - an aggregate of 2 workweeks (or 80 hours 

for a full-time employee) non-pay status in a waiting period is creditable service for advancement 

to steps 2, 3, and 4; four workweeks (160 hours) for advancement to steps 5, 6, and 7; and six 

workweeks (240 hours) for advancement to steps 8, 9, and 10. For prevailing rate employees 

(FW Pay Plan), an aggregate of one workweek non-pay status (40 hours) is creditable service for 

advancement to step 2, three weeks (120 hours) for advancement to step 3, and four weeks (160 

hours) for advancement to steps 4 and 5. 

Severance pay - non-pay status time is fully creditable for the 12-month continuous employment 

period required by the appropriate collective bargaining agreement 

Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) - Employees should refer to the TSP Fact Sheet - Effect of Non-pay 

Status on Your TSP Account, available from the TSP web site at www.tsp.gov. 

Military duty or workers' compensation - non-pay status for employees who are performing 

military duty or being paid workers' compensation counts as a continuation of Federal 

employment for all purposes upon the employee's return to duty. 

Section D: Retirement and Insurance 

1. Q. When a furlough occurs during the three years of service prior to retirement, what effect will 

time in a furlough status have on an employee's high-3 average? 

A. Generally there will be no effect on the high-3 average unless the furlough causes the employee to be 

in a non-pay status for more than 6 months during the calendar year. 

2. Q. Are the retirement rules concerning the effect of a furlough the same for employees under 

the Civil Service Retirement System and the Federal Employees Retirement System? 

A. Yes. 

3. Q. What happens if an employee terminates his or her Federal Employee Health Benefits 

(FEHB) coverage while in a non-pay status in order to avoid the expense? 

A. Employees who terminate FEHB coverage to avoid payment of premiums while in a non-payor 

reduced-pay status do not have to wait for an FEHB open season to re-enroll. Termination of FEHB 

coverage will not affect an employee's right to carry such coverage into retirement or while in receipt of 

workers' compensation. 

4. Q. Will an employee continue to be covered under the Federal Employee Health Benefits 

(FEHB) program if the agency is unable to make its premium payments on time? 

A. Yes, the employee's FEHB coverage will continue even if an agency does not make the premium 

payments on time. Since the employee will be in a non-pay status, the enrollee share of the FEHB 

premium will accumulate and be withheld from pay upon return to pay status. 

Furlough - Questions and Answers 

Page 4 of 10 
520

Section E: Impact on other Benefits Programs 

1. Q. To what extent does non-pay status affect Flexible Spending Account (FSA) coverage? 

A. Deductions will cease for periods of non-pay status where there are insufficient funds to cover the 

Flexible Spending Account (FSA) premium(s). If the employee is in a non-pay status and has not pre· paid 

the FSA allotment, their FSA account will be frozen and the employee will not be eligible for 

reimbursement of any health care expenses incurred during that period until he/she returns to a pay 

status and allotments are successfully restarted. However, if the employee has a Dependent Care 

Flexible Spending Account (DCFSA), dependent care expenses incurred during the period in a non·pay 

status which meet IRS guidelines for eligible expenses (i.e., the employee must incur the expenses in 

order to allow the employee and his/her spouse to work or attend school) may be reimbursed up to the 

FSA account balance. When the employee returns to a pay status, allotments will be recalculated based 

on the number of pay dates remaining in the Benefit Period. 

If the employee prepays his/her premiums by accelerating allotments prior to being placed in a non-pay 

status, allowable health care expenses incurred during the period in a non-pay status will be eligible for 

reimbursement Visit the FSAFEDS website, www.[safeds.com. for more information. 

2. Q. To what extent does non-pay status affect Long Term Care (LTC) coverage? 

A. Deductions cease when the employee is placed in a non-pay status and there are insufficient funds to 

cover the premium(s). In order for employees to continue Long Term Care (LTC) coverage, employees 

must make payments while in a non-pay status. Visit the LTC website, 

https:/lwww.ltcfeds.com/documents. for more information. 

3. Q. To what extent does non-pay status affect Federal Employees Dental and Vision Insurance 

Plan (FEDVIP) coverage? 

A. Deductions cease when the employee is placed in a non-pay status and there are insufficient funds to 

cover the premium(s). In order for employees to continue FEDVIP coverage, employees must make 

payments while in a non-pay status. For more information visit www.benefeds.com. 

Section F: FMLA Leave during a furlough 

1. Q. If an employee is furloughed during absences covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act 

of 1993 (FMLA). does the furlough count toward the 12-week entitlement to FMLA leave? 

A. No. Consistent with applicable laws and Agency policy, furlough during absences covered by the 

FMLA is not counted against the 12-week FMLA entitlement 

Section G: Injury While on Furlough 

1. Q. Are employees who are injured while on furlough eligible to receive workers compensation? 

A. No. Workers compensation is paid to employees only if they are injured while performing their duties. 

Employees on furlough are not in a duty status. An employee who is receiving workers' compensation 

payments will continue to receive workers compensation payments during a furlough period and will 

continue to be charged LWOP. 

2. Q. How is Continuation of Pay (COP) under the Federal Employees' Compensation Act affected 

by a furlough? 

A. The Department of Labor's Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, which administers the Federal 

Furlough - Questions and Answers 

Page 5 of 10 
521

Employees' Compensation Act (FECA), advises that, in the event of a furlough, an employee who is 

disabled due to his or her injury is to be maintained in COP status during the furlough period unless the 

agency does not have monies available to pay the salary of that employee. If the agency does not have 

monies to pay salary during the furlough period but the agency's budget is subsequently restored in such 

a way as to allow for retroactive payment of salary during the furlough period, the employee should 

receive COP for any period of disability that occurs within the furlough. In the event an agency is legally 

unable to pay COP to an employee because of a furlough, the employee may file a claim for regular 

FECA wage loss compensation for that period. 

Section H: Unemployment Compensation for Federal Employees (UCFE) 

1. Q. Are employees entitled to UCFE benefits while on furlough? 

A. It is possible that employees may be eligible for UCFE benefits, especially if they are on consecutive 

furlough days. State unemployment compensation requirements differ. Once employees are in a non-pay 

status they should contact their State unemployment office for more information regarding filing for 

unemployment benefits. The list below gives Web sites or instructions for each state when filing an initial 

claim for unemployment. 

Alabama - http://dir.alabama.gov/uc/ 

Alaskahttp://www.labor.state.ak.us/esd unemploym 

ent insurance/call-centers.htm 

Arizona -

https:llwww,azdes.govllanding.aspx?id=4211 

Arkansas -

http://dws.arkansas.gov/Ullindex.htm 

California - https:/Ieapply4ui.edd.ca.gov/ 

Coloradohttp://www,colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/CDLEUnempBenefits/CDLE/1248095315427 

Connecticut -

http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/progsuptiunempl 

t1FileClaim,htm 

Delaware - http://ui.delawareworks.com 

District of Columbia -

http://does.dc.gov/servicelunemploymentcompensation-process 

Florida - http://www.floridajobs.org/jobseekers-community-serviceslreemploymentassistance-centerlfile-a-claim 

Georgiahttp://www.dol.state.ga.usljs/file unemploym 

ent insurance claim.htm 

Hawaii - http://labor.hawaii.gov 

Idahohttp://labor.idaho.govldnn/Default.aspx?Tabl 

0=681 &AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 

lIIinoishttp://www.ides.state.iI.us/individuallcertifv/d 

efault.asp 

Indiana - http://www.in.gov/dwdI2508.htm 

lowahttp://www.iowaworkforce.org/uilfile1.htm#1 

Furlough - Questions and Answers 

Kansashttps:llwww.getkansasbenefits.com 

Kentucky - http://www.kewes.ky.govl 

Louisianahttp://www.laworks.netiUnemploymentinsura 

ncelUI Claimants.asp 

Mainehttp://www.maine.govllabor/unemploymentlcl 

aims,html 

Marylandhttp://www.dllr.state.md.uslemploymentlune 

mployment.shtml 

Massachusetts -

http://www.mass.govllwdlunemploymentinsurl 

Michiganhttp://www.michigan.gov/uia/O.1607.7-118--

77962--,OO.html 

Minnesotahttp://www,uimn,org/uimn/applicants/ 

Mississippi -

http://mdes,ms.gov/unemployment-claims/ 

Missourihttp://www.labor.mo.gov/des/claims/ 

Montana - https:llapp.mt.gov/ui4u/index 

Nebraska -

https:lluibenefits.nwd,ne.gov/BPSWebljsp/B 

PSClaimantWelcome.jsp 

Nevadahttp://www.ui.nvdetr.org/UIAgreement.html 

New Hampshire -

https:llnhuis,nh.gov/claimantl 

New Jerseyhttp://lwd.dol.state.nj.usllaborluilfileuilfile in 

dex.html 

Page 6 0110 
522

New Mexicohttp://www.dws.state.nm.us/Unemploymentln 

surance/UIClaimsandBenefitsSystem/NMWor 

kforceConnectionUISystem 

New Yorkhttp://www.labor.ny.gov/unemploymentassist 

ance.shtm 

North Carolina -

https:/Iwww.ncesc.comlindividual/weblnitial 

Claims/applyBegin.asp 

North Dakota -

http://www.jobsnd.com/unemployment-forindividuals 

Ohio - http://unemploymenl.ohio.gov/ 

Oklahomahttps:llunemployment.state.ok.us 

Oregonhttp://www.oregon.gov/employ/ui/pages/inde 

x.aspx 

Pennsylvania -

http://www.uc.pa.gov/portallserver.ptlcommu 

nity/ellgibility/20593 

Puerto Rico - file via phone by calling 787-

754-5353 

Rhode Island - http://www.dlt.ri.gov/ui/ 

South Carolina - http://dew.sc.gov/claimland.asp 

Section I: Labor Management Relations Implications 

South Dakota -

http://dlr.sd.gov/ui/uibenefits.aspx 

Tennessee - http://www.tn.govllaborwfd/Claimants/appintro.html 

Texashttp://www.twc.state.tx.us/ui/uiclaim.html 

Utahhttp://jobs.utah.gov/ui/Jobseeker/FileNew.as 

.P 

Vermonthttp://www.labor.vermont.gov/Unemployed/ta 

bid/109/Default.aspx 

Virginiahttp://www.vec.virginia.gov/unemployed 

Virgin Islands - file in person only. Contact 

information is listed at 

http://www.vidol.gov/OP/Contact.htm 

Washington -

http://www.esd.wa.gov/uibenefits/apply/eligib 

ilitylam-i-eligible.php 

West Virginia -

http://www.wvcommerce.org/business/workf 

orcewv/unemployment compensation/claima 

nts/default.aspx 

Wisconsin - http://dwd.wisconsin.gov/uiben/ 

Wyominghttps:lldoe.state.wy.usllnetClaims/ 

1. Q. Does a furlough cancel or supersede any provision contained within the collective 

bargaining agreement or other Memorandum of Understanding (MOUI? 

A. No. All provisions and Agency obligations contained within the collective bargaining agreements and 

national, regional or local MOU's remain in full force and effect. 

2. Q. Are Union representatives entitled to official time during the furlough period? 

A. Yes. All provisions and Agency obligations contained within the collective bargaining agreements and 

national, regional or local MOU's remain in full force and effect. 

3. Q. Will procedures to effect the furlough be developed? 

A. Yes. The Parties at the National level will negotiate implementation procedures, although the timing 

of these negotiations may be different for a discretionary and a shutdown furlough. 

Chapter 2 - Discretionary Furloughs 

Section A: General 

1. Q. For discretionary furloughs necessitated by Agency or LOB funding shortfalls, is the 

Agency required to provide employees 30 calendar days advance written notice and an 

opportunity to respond prior to issuing a decision to furlough? 

Furlough - Questions and Answers 

Page 7 of 10 
523

A. Yes. The advance written notice and opportunity to respond are required for a planned furlough of 

less than 30 calendar days. The employee has the opportunity to reply to the notice orally and in writing 

within fifteen (15) days from the date the employee receives notice proposing the action. The employee's 

response must be considered by the Agency prior to the final decision to furlough the employee. 

2. Q. Are employees entitled to duty time and representation to prepare their responses? 

A. Yes. The employee and the Union representative shall be granted a reasonable amount of excused 

absence and official time of up to sixteen (16) hours, if otherwise in a duty status. The timing of the grant 

of excused absence shall, to the maximum extent possible, be scheduled at the employee's convenience. 

3. Q. Will the number of discretionary furlough days be continuous or discontinuous? 

A. The Agency and the Union at the National level will negotiate the procedures the Agency will follow in 

the implementation of the furlough. However, a discretionary furlough may not exceed 30 continuous 

calendar days or 22 discontinuous work days. 

4. Q. Will employees be allowed to select when they will take furlough days? 

A. The Agency and the Union at the National level will negotiate the procedures the Agency will follow in 

the implementation of the furlough. 

5. Q. Will all employees be on a discretionary furlough at the same time? 

A.No. 

6. Q. Are there employees that are "excepted" from the discretionary furlough? 

A. No. The strict requirements of determining which employees are excepted or non-excepted is based 

on legally established criteria which does not apply to a discretionary furlough, as it does to a lapse of 

appropriation furloughs. When the Agency or LOB makes a decision to implement a discretionary 

furlough for 30 days or less there are no "excepted" employees. 

7. Q. Would employees who are detailed or assigned outside the Agency during part, or the entire 

period, of a discretionary furlough be subject to furlough? What happens to staff being funded 

under reimbursable agreements (e.g., AIR personnel in the Military Certification Officereimbursed by DoD)? 

A. Employees on a reimbursable detail from the Agency would not be subject to furlough if full 

reimbursement continued. If reimbursement were reduced or eliminated, the employee would be subject 

to furlough. FAA employees assigned to non-Federal organizations who are on leave-without-pay from 

their Federal positions may continue working. 

8. Q. How will the length of furlough day hours be calculated? Is this based on employees' work 

schedules, e.g. 8, 9, or 10 hours? 

A. An employee's current work schedule, including AWS, determines the number of hours in their 

workday. For purposes of equity, employees will not be furloughed more than eight (8) hours in a 

workday. 

9. Q. How would the Agency schedule a discretionary furlough for part-time employees? 

Furlough - Questions and Answers 

Page 8 of 10 
524

A. For a part-time employee, the furlough requirements shall be prorated by computing the furlough days 

as furlough hours in the same proportion to those hours scheduled for full-time employees working 80 

hours biweekly, based on work schedules. 

10. Q. Mayan employee work on a discretionary furlough day in exchange for taking a day off at 

another time for religious observances? 

A. No. 

Section F: Requests for Leave during a Furlough period 

1. Q. Can an employee request to be furloughed in lieu of paid leave-i.e., annual, sick, court, 

military leave, or leave for bone marrow or organ donation -after receiving a furlough notice, in 

order to meet the furlough requirements. 

A. The Agency and the Union at the National level will negotiate the procedures the Agency will follow in 

the implementation of the furlough. 

2. Q. Can an employee substitute furlough days for absences taken pursuant to the FMLA? 

A. Yes, an employee may choose to substitute furlough days for periods of absence taken under the 

FMLA. These periods would offset the employees furlough requirement. 

3. Q. What happens to 'use of lose' annual leave that cannot be taken as a result of a furlough? 

A. If an employee is unable to use their "use or lose" annual leave due to staffing and workload needs 

during the furlough period, and if she/he is unable to schedule this leave prior to the end of the leave 

year, such annual leave shall be restored. 

Section I: Payments upon Separation from Federal Service 

1. Q. If there is a discretionary furlough, may employees who are separating receive a lump-sum 

payment for their unused annual leave? 

A. The obligation of funds for a lump-sum annual leave payment is triggered by an employee's 

separation from Federal service. If an employee separates during a furlough period, the lump-sum 

annual leave payment will be paid. 

Section J: Documentation of a Discretionary Furlough 

1. Q. How is time on discretionary furlough documented? 

A. An SF-50, "Notification of Personnel Action," must be prepared for each individual subject to furlough 

(or a list form of notification for a group of employees who are to be furloughed on the same day or days 

each pay period). A return-to-duty SF-50 is necessary only for return from a consecutive furlough, not for 

a return frorn a discontinuous furlough (nonconsecutive days). 

Section K: Travel and Training 

1. Q. What happens to employees who are away from their duty station on work assignment when 

the furlough period begins? 

A. Any employee on temporary assignment away from the facility/office shall be reimbursed for expenses 

authorized by the FAATP during the furlough period. Travel vouchers submitted and approved in GovTrip 

Furlough - QUestions and Answers 

Page 9 of 10 
525

prior to the furlough will be processed. The traveler is responsible for payment of his/her Travel Charge 

Card bill. 

2. Q. Will employees on TOY continue to receive coverage under insurance and other provisions 

that typically cover employees on travel? 

A. Yes. As long as the employee is on valid TDY (e.g., employees traveling home within 24 hours of 

furlough, long term TDY or international assignments that have not been cancelled) the employee will be 

covered by the same provisions and insurance as he/she would if there had been no furlough. 

3. Q. When a discretionary furlough occurs, do training courses in progress continue? Is there a 

distinction between technical (safety critical) and non-technical training? How much time do they 

have to return? Do they need to return home prior to the anticipated beginning of a shutdown? 

A. If a furlough occurs, the LOB should be capable of planning the employees' furlough days around 

training requirements. The nature of a planned discretionary furlough allows managers flexibility to work 

around training requirements. As a general rule, training should only continue to the extent that it 

contributes to the safety of human life or preservation of property. 

4. Q. Should employees on long term TOY or on international long term assignment return to their 

home facilities in the event of a discretionary shutdown? 

A. Employees on long term TDY or international long term assignment should not break lease 

agreements and return home to their permanent duty station. 

Chapter 3 - Shutdown Furlough (emergency shutdown or for extended 

emergency due to an Act of God or unforeseeable circumstances) 

Section A: General 

1. Q. In the event of a shutdown furlough, can an employee be furloughed without first receiving a 

written notice of decision to furlough? 

A. Yes. While an employee must ultimately receive a written notice of decision to furlough, it is not 

required that such written notice be given prior to effecting the emergency furlough or in person. Advance 

written notice is preferable, but when prior written notice is not feasible, then any reasonable notice (e.g., 

telephonic, oral, personal email, or by mail promptly after the furlough) is permissible. 

2. Q. Are there employees that are "excepted" from a shutdown furlough? 

A. The strict requirements for determining which employees are excepted or non-excepted is based on 

legally established criteria which do not apply to a discretionary furlough, as they do to a lapse of 

appropriation furlough. When the furlough is a result of the lapse of an appropriation, the term "excepted 

employees" refers to employees who are excepted from a furlough by law because they: (1) perform 

emergency work involving the safety of human life or the protection of property, (2) are involved in the 

orderly suspension of agency operations, or (3) perform other functions exempted from the furlough. 

Note: "excepted employees" is not to be confused with "employees in the excepted federal service." 

3. Q. How will the length of furlough day hours be calculated? Is this based on employees' work 

schedules, e.g. 8, 9, or 10 hours? 

A. In a shutdown furlough, non-exempted or non-excepted employees will be furloughed for the entirety 

of their workday. 

Furlough - Questions and Answers 

Page 10 of 10 
526

Studies on Gender Wage Gap 

• Blau and Kahn (1997) find that after several controls the wage ratio was 88.2 percent in 

1988. 

• Waldfogel (1998) finds that the single-woman, single-man pay ratio is 88 percent. 

• O'Neil (2003) finds that the pay ratio in 2000 for people ages 35-43 was 97.5 percent 

after adjusting for schooling, ability, experience, and occupational characteristics 

(http;//www.tmbc.com/newsletters/tweets/wagesGap.lli!f. p. 313). 

• Blau and Kahn (2006) found that when controlling for human capital variables, industry, 

occupation, and collective bargaining coverage, the gender wage ratio increased from 

81.6 percent in 1979 to 91.0 percent in 1989 and remained at 91.0 percent in 1998 

(http;//vvww.nber.org/papers/w10853.pdf?new window=l, p. 14). 
(527)

THURSDAY, APRIL 25, 2013. 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

WITNESS

HON. JOSEPH C. SZABO, ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

Mr. LATHAM. The subcommittee will come to order. 

This morning, we welcome FRA Administrator Joseph Szabo to 

testify on the FRA’s budget request for fiscal year 2014. 

We welcome you back, Mr. Szabo. 

This year, the FRA is requesting authority to spend $6.6 billion in fiscal year 2014. This represents a $5 billion increase over fiscal 

year 2013 funding, or a 330 percent increase, one of the largest increases in the budget. This includes $2.7 billion for Amtrak, which is doubled from the 

fiscal year 2013 level. It also includes $3.7 billion for a new rail 

service improvement program, which could be used to fund highspeed rail investments, which are eligible under this new account. The budget assumes that $214 billion in savings from the overseas contingency operations will be used to shore up the Highway 

Trust Fund. It proposes to use $40 billion from this bolstered trust 

fund to finance a 5-year rail reauthorization proposal. 

It is widely known that CBO expects the trust fund to go broke 

in 2014, and the withdrawal of forces from Iraq and Afghanistan 

does not create a real offset. The administration seems hopelessly 

confused about the fact that budgets do not assume that wars go 

on forever. I cannot make it any plainer for you than to say Congress has not and would not have appropriated funds for operations 

overseas in years that follow the departure of our forces. That is 

absurd. This ridiculous proposal is yet another accounting gimmick 

that this budget puts forward to justify even more unsustainable 

spending.

This proposal is particularly frustrating in a year when the 

American people are expecting leadership from all of us on fiscal 

responsibility. This is an expensive proposal to put forth in this environment without any real way to pay for it. As you know, we are 

under significant financial constraints. With that said, I am looking 

forward to hearing a more detailed explanation of your budget. 

We welcome you again, Mr. Szabo. 

Before I recognize the Administrator for his opening statement, 

I recognize Mr. Pastor for his opening comments. 

Mr. PASTOR. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman.

I also want to welcome the Federal Railroad Administrator, Mr. 

Szabo. Welcome to the subcommittee and this hearing on the 2014 

appropriation budget. 
528

The president’s budget request for the Federal Railroad Administration includes the biggest increase within the entire DOT budget. 

The budget includes a total of $6.6 billion for FRA’s programs and 

activities, of which $6.4 billion is requested in mandatory funding 

for two new rail accounts. 

Key components of the new current passenger rail service program include: capital and operating support for long-distance 

routes, transitional assistance for States as they begin to cover the 

full operating and capital costs of State-supported routes, and critical funding to address the state-of-good-repair backlog on the 

Northeast Corridor. 

In many ways, Mr. Chairman, the state-of-good-repair funding 

builds on your new initiative you proposed in the fiscal year 2013 

bill and Amtrak’s capital account for the bridge and tunnel program. I am hopeful that we can get further in the process this year. Finally, I am pleased that the budget request includes $70 million for rail planning. As you may recall, I urged that we include 

funding for planning when President Bush requested this intercity 

rail passenger grant program a few years back. Sound planning 

and analysis is essential for the development of any new transportation project. 

I look forward to Mr. Szabo’s testimony and discussion today. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. LATHAM. After the Administrator, we will proceed with 5- 

minute rounds, alternating back and forth in our normal procedure.

With that, Mr. Szabo, we invite you to give us your opening 

statement. Your written statement will be included in the record. 

You are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SZABO. Very good. 

Chairman Latham, Ranking Member Pastor, members of the 

committee, thank you so much for this opportunity to discuss our 

2014 budget request. 

This budget represents a multiyear blueprint for investing in the 

next era of American freight and passenger rail and reflects an 

emerging consensus that rail is the mode of opportunity. We are requesting $6.6 billion for fiscal year 2014, including $6.4 

billion for the development of a national high-performance rail system program, the first of a 5-year, $40-billion rail authorization. 

The program will be focused on two connecting priorities: modernizing our existing rail system and building an enhanced passenger 

and freight network to meet future demand. 

Our budget also requests funding for expanding key safety initiatives that have helped to make 2012 the safest year in railroad history.

Further, as part of the President’s initiative to invest $50 billion 

in transportation infrastructure this coming year, we are requesting $5 billion for rail projects. In the next few decades, America’s 

transportation network will need to move 100 million additional 

people and 4 billion more tons of freight per year, and it will need 

to do it safely, reliably, and efficiently. 

But today our airports and highways are stretched close to their limits, with congestion costing our economy more $120 billion a 
529

year. These challenges underscore the need to invest in more underutilized transportation alternatives, such as rail, which can be 

the most cost-effective, least oil-reliant, and most environmentally 

friendly mode to move people and freight. 

Congress recognized this need in 2008 when it passed with broad 

bipartisan support two landmark pieces of legislation: the Rail 

Safety Improvement Act and the Passenger Rail Investment and 

Improvement Act. And both have helped fuel the resurgence of 

American rail. 

Since these projects were passed, railroad accidents have fallen 

to record lows, while Amtrak’s ridership and on-time performance 

have risen to record highs and freight intermodal traffic has surged 

to near record levels. Over the past 4 years, historic levels of public 

and private investment have been made in safety improvements, 

passenger rail equipment, corridor upgrades, and freight capacity. 

The key elements of PRIIA and RSIA are now set to expire at 

the end of this fiscal year. And as much as we have accomplished, 

much more needs to be done to rebalance our Nation’s transportation network. 

Our budget proposes to take a more coordinated approach to enhancing the Nation’s rail system—a holistic, integrated strategy 

that addresses safety, passenger and freight service improvements, 

and strong planning. Our new approach builds on the core principles of PRIIA and RSIA, and it better reflects both our on-theground experiences and the complex reality of our rail system, 

which runs mainly on privately owned track, carrying a mix of passenger and freight trains. 

Much of the rail infrastructure we rely on today was built by 

past generations of Americans who acted on our behalf. Now is the 

time for our generation, for the sake of our children and grandchildren, to recapture that visionary spirit. But to do so, sustained 

and predictable Federal funding for rail programs is a necessity. 

For decades, Congress has funded highway, transit, and aviation 

programs through multiyear authorizations that provide guaranteed funding that enables States, local governments, and the private sector to plan for and make transportation investments. 

Around the world, major rail systems have been developed through 

similar multiyear funding programs. So to build the rail network 

that our economy needs, we are proposing to adopt this approach 

for rail by establishing a new rail account of the transportation 

trust fund. Given the enormous pent-up demand for rail projects, 

this is an appropriate step forward. 

For the $10 billion this administration has invested in highspeed and higher-performing intercity passenger rail, we have received applications requesting funding for more than seven times 

that amount. And since 2009, 75 environmental and engineering 

studies and 30 State rail plans and corridor plans are under way, 

creating an even stronger pipeline for future projects. With your 

support, we can safely position our rail network for its increasingly 

vital role in meeting the Nation’s transportation challenges. 

In closing, I want to thank the committee for their work to address the rail needs in the Northeast region resulting from Hurricane Sandy. Work is ongoing to make critical investments needed 

to restore and revitalize services in the area. However, we are not 
530

able to access all of the funds that were appropriated for Amtrak, 

so we will continue to work with the committee to resolve the underlying concerns and modify the legislative language to make all 

of the funds available. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to your questions. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you very much, Mr. Szabo. 

[The information follows:] 
531

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF 

THE HONORABLE JOSEPH C. SZABO, 

ADMINISTRATOR, FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND URBAN 

DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 

COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Apri125,2013 

Chairman Latham, Ranking Member Pastor, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the President's FY 2014 budget for the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA). In this testimony, I will provide an overview ofFRA's 

priorities for moving forward, summarize our recent accomplishments, and describe the details 

behind our budget and reauthorization proposals. 

PRIORITIES FOR MOVING FORWARD 

FY 2014 Budget Highlights 

FRA's budget presents the Administration's blueprint for the next era of rail- and also reflects an 

emerging consensus that rail is the mode of opportunity. FRA requests $6.6 billion for FY 2014, 

including $6.4 billion for a proposed National High Performance Rail System program 

(NHPRS). This bold initiative will substantially improve the safety and performance of the 

Nation's rail system, helping to accommodate a growing population and providing an alternative 

to the Nation's increasingly congested airports and highways. FY 2014 would be the first year 

of a five-year $40 billion authorization of the National High-Performance Rail System. 

Further, the budget identifies modest funding requirements for expanding key safety initiatives. 

These include expanding FRA's Confidential Close Call Reporting System from a pilot to a 

nationwide program, and upgrading FRA's Rail Safety Information System to accommodate new 

data reporting and analysis requirements stemming from regulations required by the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA). 

Additionally, the President's proposal to invest $50 billion in transportation infrastructure this 

coming year includes $5 billion for rail projects. FRA will selectively target these funds to 

accelerate improvements to both current and future passenger rail services. This investment will 

improve transportation performance, while also spurring immediate job creation and supporting 

long-term economic growth. 
532

Reauthorization Priorities 

As you know, portions of two important rail laws expire at the end ofFY 2013 the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of2008 (RSlA) and Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of2008 

(PRIIA). The rail industry has changed dramatically since these two landmark acts were passed 

with broad bipartisan support in 2008. Accidents are at record lows, while train ridership and 

reliability are at record highs. The financial performance of the freight rail industry and Amtrak 

has never been stronger. Historic levels of public and private investment have been made in 

passenger rail equipment, corridor upgrades, freight capacity, and safety improvements. Dozens 

of planning studies, environmental reviews, and engineering analyses are underway, creating a 

strong pipeline for future projects. 

These accomplishments do not mean we can declare victory - much more needs to be done to 

rebalance the Nation's transportation system after decades of serious underinvestment in rail. 

The President's FY 2014 budget for FRA lays out a comprehensive multi-year reauthorization 

blueprint for moving forward. The fundamental goal of this proposal is to take a more 

coordinated approach to enhancing the Nation's rail system an integrated strategy that 

addresses safety and passenger and freight service improvements. This new approach better 

reflects the complex reality of how rail works in the United States most track is privatelyowned and carries a mix of passenger and freight trains; safety is improved through regulations 

and inspections but also through capital investments; chokepoints often hinder the efficient 

movement of intercity, commuter, and freight trains. 

This budget, while in many ways ambitious and transformational, is rooted in ideas and solutions 

that have received extensive discussion and debate in recent years. It builds on the core 

principles ofPRIIAIRSIA, while reflecting "on-the-ground" experiences. It is based on the 

evolving needs of rail stakeholders, and acknowledges that demographic, economic, and 

environmental changes will continue boosting the market demand for rail for decades to come. 

FRA's key priorities are: 

• Enhancing world-class safety. Rail is already among the safest modes of transportation, 

and safety has only been improving in recent years. Nevertheless, better safety 

performance is imperative, and with innovative safety practices and new technologies, 

the railroad industry can achieve this goal. 

• Modernizing our rail infrastructure. Past generations of Americans invested heavily 

in building the infrastructure we rely on today. Most segments of the Northeast Corridor 

were built more than a century ago, for example. Modernizing these assets will lower 

long-term costs and result in a safer, more reliable rail system. 

• Meeting the growing market demand. The nation's population is projected to grow by 

100 million by 2050. The national transportation system must be prepared to handle 

substantial increases in the movement of people and goods. Given the existing capacity 

constraints on other modes, rail will play an increasingly vital role in balancing 

America's transportation system by accommodating this growth, resulting in public 

2 
533

benefits such as reduced reliance on foreign oil, reduced air pollution, increased safety, 

and more travel options. This budget proposes making market-based investments to 

build or improve passenger rail corridors, eliminate rail chokepoints, add freight capacity; 

and conduct comprehensive planning. 

• Promoting innovation. FRA's goal is for the domestic rail industry to be world-leading 

again- we want to encourage U.S. companies to develop patents for state-of-the-art rail 

technology, to supply rail operators throughout the world, and to employ the best 

engineers and railway workers. The United States should be exporting intellectual capital 

and rail products, not importing them. 

• Ensuring transparency and accountability. Accomplishing the priorities described 

above can only occur if Federal resources are managed through a transparent process that 

makes it clear what public benefits and service improvements the American people are 

"buying" with their investments. The roles and responsibilities of the Federal 

government, States, Amtrak, freight railroads, and other stakeholders must be clear and 

based on sound public policy. 

Need for Predictable Funding 

An overarching issue that runs across all of these priorities is the need for sustained and 

predictable Federal funding for rail programs, similar to the treatment of other modes of 

transportation. Congress has for decades funded highway infrastructure and safety, transit, and 

aviation programs through multi-year authorizations that provide guaranteed funding. This 

enables states, local governments, and other stakeholders to plan for and to make large-scale 

infrastructure investments on a year-to-year basis. Likewise, internationally, other major rail 

systems have been planned and developed through a predictable multi-year funding program. 

The Administration proposes adopting this budgeting approach for rail, including authorizing 

mandatory contract authority through FY 2018 for FRA' s new rail programs. The programs 

would be funded from resources in a new Rail Account of the Transportation Trust Fund. (The 

Highway Trust Fund would be renamed the Transportation Trust Fund and would continue to 

include separate Highway and Transit accounts.) The budget does not propose new taxes, and 

it does not divert existing gas tax revenues from highway and transit programs to rail. Rather, 

the budget proposes offsetting the cost of the requested rail programs using the savings generated 

by capping the Overseas Contingency Operations activities through FY 2018. Over the longer 

term, the Administration looks forward to working with Congress to identify creative solutions to 

fund rail along with DOT's other surface transportation programs, recognizing that a seamless, 

multimodal system for the Nation requires predictable, comprehensive and coordinated funding, 

planning, and implementation. 

3 
534

RECENT ACCOMPLISHMENTS 

FRA's top priority is safety, and 2012 was the satest year in the history of the railroad 

industry. For the fifth fiscal year in a row, FRA successfully improved on all six of its Safety 

Performance Measures. From FY 2008 to FY 2012, the overall rail-related rate of 

accidents/incidents declined by approximately 14 percent. The rate of non-accident hazardous 

materials releases per 200 million ton-miles is down 28 percent. The rate of human factors 

accidents per million train-miles has decreased 29 percent, the grade crossing incidents rate is 

lower by 16 percent, and the rate of track -caused accidents has decreased by 28 percent. These 

safety efforts have contributed to 19 percent fewer fatalities and injuries (falling from 10,209 

casualties to 8,295 casualties). 

In the area of rail safety, as noted, FRA has made significant progress fulfilling unprecedented 

mandates set forth by the RSIA: 

• To address track-caused accidents, FRA issued regulations on concrete ties. 

• To enhance grade crossing safety, FRA issued standards for emergency notification 

systems and regulations requiring certain states to issue State Action Plans to improve 

safety at highway-rail grade crossings. FRA also issued Model State Laws on highway 

users' sight distance at passively signed crossings and on motorists' violations of grade 

crossing warning devices. 

• To address human factors-caused accidents and resulting casualties, FRA issued 

regulations to enable nationwide implementation of Positive Train Control (PTC) systems 

and standards for passenger train employee hours of service, which were authorized by 

the RSIA. 

FRA also issued guidance on pedestrian safety at or near rail passenger stations; a regulation 

requiring conductor certification; and another regulation requiring owners of railroad bridges to 

implement programs for inspection, maintenance, and management of those structures and 

standards for camp cars used as railroad employee sleeping quarters. 

FRA has been actively supporting the safety of proposed passenger rail operations, including line 

extensions, and shared-use and high-speed operations. FRA has provided technical outreach, 

including training and information regarding safety regulations and system safety, to many new 

start commuter railroads and is currently working with several other new operators. Further, 

FRA is making important strides to address human factors issues through an industry-wide 

initiative to combat the dangers of electronic device distraction in the railroad workplace as well 

as implementing a Confidential Close Call Reporting System program. The Budget proposes 

expanding it from a limited pilot project to a nation-wide rollout in order to better analyze close 

call data from railroads and improve safety culture across the country. 

Rail trespassing accounted for 63% of all rail-related fatalities last year. Last summer, to help 

reduce the number of trespass deaths, FRA and the Federal Transit Administration co-hosted the 

second Right-of-Way Fatality and Trespass Prevention Workshop to identify and prioritize ways 

we can make progress in this area. Methods for successfully reducing trespass were shared and 

4 
535

are now posted on the FRA website. These achievements are not an occasion to reflect, but a 

foundation to build on as we look for more and better ways to improve the safety of our rail 

network. FRA will continue its involvement in these workshops as a core mitigation strategy in 

order to further reduce rail-related fatalities. 

Investments 

FRA is managing investments that will provide rail access to new communities and improve the 

reliability, speed, and frequency of existing services. To date, FRA has obligated $9.9 billion in 

grant funding provided by Congress for the High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) 

program through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and annual 

appropriations for FY 2009 and 2010. FRA is also managing rail investments through grant and 

loan programs such as TIGER, rail line relocation, and Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement 

Financing (RRIF), in addition to overseeing annual !,,'fants to Amtrak. 

This portfolio of investments is having a substantial impact on the Nation's rail system: 6,000 

corridor miles are being improved, 30 stations are being upgraded, and hundreds of new 

passenger cars and locomotives are being procured. These projects will improve the customer 

experience by reducing trip times, improving reliability, adding additional frequencies, and 

making stations and equipment more comfortable and accessible. Our strict "Buy America" 

requirement ensures that tracks, crossties, train sets, construction materials, and new stations are 

built in America and support domestic manufacturers and suppliers. 

REAUTHORIZATION PROGRAM PROPOSALS 

The Administration's FY 2014 budget request lays out a detailed blueprint for a five-year 

reauthorization proposal. The remainder of this testimony will outline the major highlights. 

Safety & Operations 

FRA is requesting $184.5 million for its Safety & Operations account to continue providing 

world-class safety oversight on the Nation's extensive rail network, and to continue 

implementing monitoring financial assistance programs. The RSIA was a key piece of 

legislation to enhance rail safety comprehensively through risk reduction program regulations 

while also focusing directly on some of the most challenging areas including hazardous 

materials, human factors, grade crossing and trespass, and track. The Act authorized 200 new 

safety positions over the five-year period, but less than a quarter were funded through 

appropriations. The FY 2014 budget requests new 30 new personnel for FRA's Office of Safety, 

including 10 rail safety inspectors to bolster FRA's on-the-ground oversight of rail operations 

and 20 safety specialists to implement new regulations in areas such as risk reduction, training 

standards, and conductor certification as well as to provide technical assistance to new start 

commuter operations. An additional 15 positions are requested to support FRA's rail policy and 

programmatic development efforts, including overseeing the implementation of complex PRIIA 

requirements. 

5 
536

National High-Performance Rail System 

The National High-Performance Rail System (NHPRS) proposes a new, coordinated approach to 

rail investments. The NHPRS would replace and consolidate existing rail programs (including 

the Amtrak grants and capital assistance for high-speed rail, among others) with two interlinked 

programs: the Current Passenger Rail Service--focused on maintaining the current rail 

network serviced by Amtrak-and the Rail Service Improvement Program-focused on 

expanding and improving the passenger and freight rail networks to accommodate growing travel 

demand. 

Additionally, the Research, Development, and Technology program will invest in people, 

businesses, and technology, ensuring that America's rail industry is the world's most innovative 

and state-of-the-art. Finally, the Railroad Research & Development program, which has been 

part ofFRA's budget for many years, will continue to lead research efforts aimed at improving 

the safety of the Nation's rail network. 

National High-Performance Rail System 

FY 2014 to FY 2018 Investment Proposal ($M) 

* Funded through the new Transportation Trust Fund 

** Funded through the General Fund, just as this account is currently funded. 

Current Passenger Rail Service: The objective of this program area is to maintain public rail 

assets in a state of good repair so that they continue producing public benefits for generations 

to come, while continuing to support the Nation's long-distance passenger rail services. The 

program will be organized according to the primary "business lines" of current passenger 

services: 

• Northeast Corridor: bring Northeast Corridor infrastructure and equipment into a state 

of good repair to enable future growth and service improvements. 

• State Corridors: facilitate efficient transition to financial control to States for shortdistance State-supported corridors, as required by PRIIA. This program will be phased 

out within the five year period once States are transitioned. 

• Long-Distance Routes: continue operations of the Nation's important long-distance 

routes. 

6 
537

• National Assets: improve efficiency of the Nation's "backbone" rail facilities, further 

implement positive train control (PTC) on Amtrak routes, and bring stations into 

compliance with requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 

This approach is a major policy change from how Federal support for current service is 

provided today, which is through separate Operating and Capital/Debt Service grants to 

Amtrak. This new structure increases transparency and better aligns Federal resources to the 

public benefits and services in which we are investing. 

Cl'RRENl PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE (n 20\-1 Request - 52.7 billion) 

Program Area and Eligible 

FY 2014 Request Objectives Eligible Activities Recipients 

Northeast Corridor Bring infrastructure and · Ongoing state of good repair capital needs. Amtrak'* 

equipment into a state of good • Backlog of state of good repair capital needs. ' 

$675 million repair to enable future growth · Replacement oflegacy/obsolete equipment. • 

and service improvements. 

State Corridors Facilitate efficient transition · Transitional capital and operating assistance to States 

(transitional) to State financial control over support phase-in of PRIIA Section 209. (Up to 

State-supported corridors. $100M)* 

$300 million · Replacement of legacy/obsolete equipment. 

($200M)* 

· 

Long-Distance Continue operation ofthe · Long-distance route capital equipment Amtrak 

Routes Nation's long-distance routes. overhauls and replacement, stations, 

maintenance facilities. etc. 

$800 million · Long-distance route operations. 

National Assets Improve efficiency of the · Operating and capital needs for national Amtrak 

Nation's "backbone" rail reservations system; security and policing; 

$925 million facilities, support rolling stock/infrastructure engineering, design 

implementation of positive services, and support facilities; training centers; 

train control on Amtrak and other national backbone systems. 

routes, and bring stations into · Support implementation of PTC on Amtrak 

compliance with the routes * 

requirements ofthe · Capital to upgrade Amtrak-served stations to be 

Americans with Disabilities ADA compliant. * 

Act (ADA). · Legacy debt service and principal. * 

Notes: 

* Temporary activities that will phase-out upon completion. 

**Funding provided through this program witl be based on a five-year Northeast Corridor capital asset plan. This plan will be prepared by 

Amtrak in coordination with the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission, which includes States and other NEe 

infrastructure owners and users, and will be approved by FRA For specitic capital projects, this plan may identify other appropriate lead 

agencies or recipients for these funds, such as States. in which case grants could be directed to those entities 

Rail Service Improvement Program: The objective of this program is to substantially 

improve the Nation's passenger and freight rail systems to accommodate population growth 

and the increasing demand for rail transportation across the country. This program will 

comprehensively address the investment needs of both passenger and freight rail systems, 

which are tightly interwoven. The program will make competitive, discretionary investments 

based on analyses of the business and public investment cases for each proposal - no projects 

7 
538

are "pre-designated" to receive any ofthese funds. The program will also address the needs of 

local communities, through funding for station areas, mitigation of the local safety, 

environmental, and noise impacts generated by the presence of rail, and for rail line relocation 

activities. 

The program will have four main areas of focus: 

• Passenger Corridors: develop high-performance passenger rail networks through 

construction of new corridors or substantial improvements to existing corridors, and to 

implement positive train control systems on commuter railroads. 

• Congestion Mitigation: address major chokepoints and congestion issues that reduce 

freight and passenger train reliability on shared-use infrastructure. 

• Freight Capacity: improve the competitiveness of the Nation's intermodal freight rail by 

upgrading facilities, adding capacity, and implementing community mitigation strategies. 

• Planning: develop comprehensive plans that will guide future investments. 

RAIL SERYlCE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (FY 2014 Request - 53.66 billion) 

Program Area and 

FY 2014 Request Objective Eligible Activities Eligible Recipients 

Passenger Corridors Build regional networks of · Environmental studies · States and multi-State 

passenger rail corridors · Right-of-way acquisition entities 

$3.250 million through construction of new · Preliminary engineering · Amtrak 

corridors or substantial · Design and construction · Equipment entity 

improvements to existing · Rolling stock acquisition · Commuter railroads ** corridors: support · Support implementation of PTC 

implementation of positive on commuter railroads. * train control (PTC) on 

commuter railroads. 

Congestion Address major chokepoints · Capital for addressing · States and multi-State 

Mitigation and congestion issues that congestion projects identified by entities 

reduce freight and passenger the Surface Transportation · Amtrak 

$150 million train reliability on shared-use Board or DOT · Freight railroads 

infrastructure. · Capital for improving · Rail terminal 

infrastructure in shared-use companies 

terminal areas 

Freight Capacity Improve the competitiveness · Capital upgrades to intermodal · States and multi-State 

of the Nation's interrnodal freight corridors and connection entities 

$190 million freight rail system by points · Freight railroads 

upgrading facilities and · Capital upgrades to short-line · Rail terminal 

adding capacity. freight railroads companies 

· Rail line relocation and · Ports 

community mitigation · Local governments ± 

Planning Develop comprehensive plans • National, multi-state, and state · States and multi-State 

that will guide future rail planning entities 

$70 million investments in the Nation's · Corridor and terminal area · Metropolitan planning 

passenger and freight rail planning/environmental analyses organizations 

systems. · Northeast Corridor FUTURE' · FRA 

Notes. " 

* Temporary activities that will phase-out upon completion, 

** For PTe implementation only, 

± For rail line relocation only. 

8 
539

Research, Development, and Technology (RD&T): The RD&T program goes beyond the 

safety benefits delivered by FRA's existing R&D program, It prepares the Nation for highperformance rail by developing new technologies and testing facilities. It also supports the 

DOT "Buy America" policy to ensure growth in the railroad industry is supplied through 

domestic sources and jobs, strengthens collaboration with universities and others working on 

research projects, and helps address the future demands for an educated and qualified railroad 

workforce. $54.7 million is requested in FY 2014 to support these critical activities. 

Railroad Research and Development: The President's Budget requests $35.3 million to 

continue research and development activities to mitigate railroad operations safety risk. Funding 

ineluded in this request will advance technology with railroad operators for system integration, 

interoperability standards, and prototypes for positive train control communications. 

CONCLUSION 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to begin a dialogue on the future of rail in 

America. The President's FY 2014 budget charts a bold new course for transportation 

infrastructure investment in the United States. We look forward to working with the Congress to 

put people back to work building a balanced transportation system that is the envy of the world 

and a Nation that is built to last. I ",ill be happy to respond to your questions. 

### 

9 
540

Mr. LATHAM. Last week, as I am sure you know, Secretary 

LaHood testified before our subcommittee, and I really need some 

clarification on a few topics that we discussed at that hearing. Secretary LaHood stated, and I quote, ‘‘DOT has never promoted 

building anything to get anywhere faster. We don’t promote things 

to get places faster.’’ Quote, ‘‘We have never promoted high-speed 

rail on the speed aspect of it.’’ 

Why have you proposed spending billions of dollars on the highspeed rail program if speed is not a factor? 

Mr. SZABO. I can’t directly, you know, attribute to what the Secretary, you know, the point he was trying to make in his comments, but I can say this about our program: Our program has always been about the performance of passenger rail. It is about a 

higher-performing passenger rail system. And, of course, our proposal going forward is about a higher-performing passenger and 

freight rail system. 

Ultimately, it comes down to the safe, reliable, and efficient 

movement of people. And so it is a matter of understanding what 

is the market need between city pairs, what types and levels and 

frequencies of service that best meet that market need. 

And so, certainly, speed is an element. I think likely the point 

the Secretary was trying to make is that speed cannot and should 

not be the only element. 

Again, when it comes to our rail program, there are markets 

where true high-speed rail core express service is appropriate because of the distances to be traveled and the population densities 

to be served. But, certainly, there are other markets where just by 

having higher-performing service, regional rail service, 90 to 100 

miles per hour, because of the lower capital costs, actually are 

much more efficient serving those markets. 

And then there are, of course, those smaller communities, those 

feeder routes that feed into the larger core system, where 79-mileper-hour service is, in fact, the most efficient and most cost-effective way to connect them to the broader network. 

Mr. LATHAM. I guess that leads perfectly to my next question. 

The FRA is insistent upon upholding a 125-mile-an-hour performance standard for rail equipment purchased by the Federal funds 

instead of 110 miles an hour. 

If going faster doesn’t matter, why take such an affirmative 

stance on the higher standard when the 110-mile-an-hour technology may be more cost-effective? 

Mr. SZABO. Yeah, easy answer, and it is about being most costeffective.

You need to keep in mind that our program has three tiers of 

service. There is that core express service, which is those speeds of, 

you know, 150 to 220 miles per hour. And then the middle tier is 

that regional express service, which operates at speeds from 90 to 

125 miles per hour. And then the third tier, you know, the feeder 

service and merging routes, operates at those speeds 79 to 90 miles 

per hour. 

So under PRIIA, Congress directed us to bring together all the 

stakeholders—the States, Amtrak, the equipment manufacturers— 

essentially to come up with standardization specifications for each 

of those three tiers of service. And so what the States and Amtrak 
541

and the equipment providers have come together on is a standard 

that fully meets the needs of that regional express tier, up to 125 

miles per hour. 

I mean, the key here is you don’t want to have a standard that 

isn’t going to meet the need of the service in that category. And 

since service in that category will in many places be going 125 

miles per hour, you need a locomotive that goes that fast. 

And by standardizing it and bundling it—we just saw in our first 

procurement in the Midwest where, through the standardization 

and the bundling, the bids came in about 35 percent lower than expectation.

And so Illinois wants to ensure that their locomotives can operate at 125 miles per hour. Michigan has expressed the same need. 

California’s locomotives are going to have to go 125 miles per hour 

for them. And so, as this procurement is bundled, you need to 

make sure you can reach your top speed. A locomotive designed for 

125 miles per hour can still go 110, but the opposite is not true. 

If you purchase a locomotive that is restricted to 110 miles per 

hour, you are limited forever, including the 30-, 40-year life of that 

locomotive.

Mr. LATHAM. All right. I think that sounds like a conflict with 

what you said previously, but my time has expired. 

Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. PASTOR. Since sequestration is the biggest topic of the week, the FRA has to make $82 million in cuts due to the sequestration. 

The bulk of these cuts will come from the Amtrak. FRA’s operating 

and research programs will be reduced by a total of nearly $11 million.

What other reductions have you made to meet your requirements 

under the sequestration? 

Mr. SZABO. Yeah, we have had essentially to take a look at—you 

know, turn over every rock and look in every corner of the organization to take a look at where savings can be achieved. And, of 

course, we have made our 5 percent across-the-board cuts. It has 

meant, in many cases, delaying in hiring. We have made significant cutbacks in travel and conference. 

You know, the goal has been for us to absorb more pain at headquarters, to make sure that we protect the ability of rank-and-file 

inspectors to make inspections out in the field and, you know, try 

to make certain that our core safety mission is not affected. 

But, you know, we did some real due diligence and began preparing actually a couple of months in advance by strategically not 

filling positions and making significant reductions in travel, canceling contracts. 

Mr. PASTOR. So has it affected the safety or efficiency of running 

the railroads? 

Mr. SZABO. It certainly has made our challenge greater. Again, 

our priority has been to protect and preserve rank-and-file inspections. So, you know, our goal is to try and make sure that it does 

not come back and bite us in the behind on, you know, achieving 

our continuous record of safety improvements. But, certainly, there 

is a risk if sequestration continues long-term. 

Mr. PASTOR. Well, I think that that is a high probability. Yesterday, we had the FAA, and the budget that was being discussed had 
542

included one of the conditions that sequestration would have been 

lifted. And I and I think Congressman Cole both suggested to the 

Administrator that, in my opinion, sequestration is going to continue in 2013 and go forward to 2014. And whenever it is lifted, 

it is going to be quite a ways. 

So I think that would be the probable situation. And so I think 

that is what you should also plan for, as you do other alternatives. 

Mr. SZABO. Congressman, obviously, the longer that sequestration is in place, the greater our risk becomes and the greater our 

challenge is. You know, but it is my responsibility to try and make 

sure that it doesn’t have a deleterious effect on safety. 

You know, we are very, very proud of the fact that we have a 

significant record of continuous safety improvement over the past 

5 years. This hurts. It sets us back. We are dealing with it. But 

the longer it is there, the greater our risk that it ends up rooting 

itself in deleteriously affecting railroad safety. 

Mr. PASTOR. Within the rail service improvement program, $70 

million is requested to coordinate planning for rail projects. And I 

will tell you that, as you probably may be aware, we are trying to 

connect two major metropolitan areas in Arizona—— 

Mr. SZABO. Phoenix and Tucson, yes, sir. 

Mr. PASTOR [continuing]. Phoenix and Tucson, that would connect 85 percent of the population and also would connect to the 

Amtrak. So it gives the connection down in Tucson. And so I am 

very happy that we had the initial grant provided by the Federal 

Government, and Arizona Department of Transportation is planning and going forward. 

Is this how you see the $70 million to be used, by local authorities and et cetera? 

Mr. SZABO. Planning today saves capital dollars tomorrow. It is 

so important that strong planning be done, that States and regions 

be able to take a look at their transportation needs and do good 

planning, having the option of using the transportation mode that 

is most efficient for the journeys that need to take place in moving 

people and goods. 

There is some great planning work being done there in the 

Southwest that I would love to spend some more bringing you up 

to speed on. But the other important thing is to continue the planning for the Northeast Corridor, the NEC FUTURE project. And it 

is imperative that the good work that has been started be allowed 

to continue there. Our planning dollars are going to expire there 

this August, and we are really going to lose synergy if we have to 

shut down that work. And this is one of the world’s strongest intercity passenger rail markets, as well as a very heavily utilized 

freight market. 

Mr. PASTOR. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman. 

Apparently, Mr. Cole does not have a question at this time, so 

I recognize Mr. Dent. 

Mr. DENT. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning, Mr. Szabo. 

Mr. SZABO. Good morning. 

Mr. DENT. Just a few things. First, thanks for being here. 
543

In light of the sequestration, can you explain how you are 

prioritizing your spending decisions? 

And, specifically, I am concerned—yesterday, as was mentioned, 

we had Administrator Huerta in here from the FAA discussing, you 

know, the issues with the FAA and air traffic control. Could you 

let me know if we could anticipate similar types of problems for 

Amtrak in light of the sequester? 

Mr. SZABO. At this point, even though there has been a 5-percent 

across-the-board reduction to Amtrak, at this point, you know, it 

won’t entail any direct disruptions of service. 

You know, again, obviously, the longer these things go on, the 

longer that they continue, the greater the risk is, you know, in 

being able to maintain, in our case, from FRA’s standpoint, the 

level of safety that we are responsible for achieving and, in Amtrak’s case, the level of service that they are expected to achieve. 

Mr. DENT. Have you requested any flexibility yet from Congress 

in the event that, you know, we would have to make some adjustments to Amtrak’s schedules? Have you requested any flexibility, 

at this point? 

Mr. SZABO. At this point, there hasn’t been the need for us to 

come and request flexibility from you. Again, we have done our due 

diligence and we have made our plans to get through the fiscal 

year 2013 at the sequestration levels. My priority, you know, has 

been, again, to protect those rank-and-file inspectors out there. But 

there would be concern that, long-term, it can manifest itself and 

have a deleterious effect on railroad safety. 

Mr. DENT. Okay. Well, in the event that there is going to be a 

problem, we just hope that your administration would notify stakeholders in a timely manner, unlike the FAA, which clearly did not 

give any stakeholders forewarning of what was about to happen, 

whether it was—in that case, it was the airports, it was the airlines, it was the unions, and, of course, the flying public. We just 

hope that if there is going to be a repeat event, that there is better 

communication.

Mr. SZABO. Yeah, we continue to coordinate very, very closely 

with Amtrak. I mean, it is on a near daily basis. 

Mr. DENT. Well, thank you. 

And I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Dent. 

Mr. Price. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Administrator. We are glad to have you here. Appreciate your good work. 

I want to talk to you about the section 209 transition assistance. 

As a State that has invested heavily in intrastate Amtrak service 

and has seen that service flourish and grow, we, of course, have a 

very strong stake in this going well and taking on this responsibility in a way that lets us continue and even increase the service. 

We are one of the States that is going to be financially responsible for supporting State corridor services under section 209 of the 

Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act beginning on October 1st of this year. North Carolina is also one of the States that 

has served on the State working group which developed the section 

209 methodology in partnership with Amtrak. 
544

Now, we both know States didn’t ask for this change. 

Mr. SZABO. Right. 

Mr. PRICE. But they have agreed to pay for the expenses directly 

associated with operating their routes, a percentage of overhead 

costs for supporting services, and capital fees to help keep trains 

and infrastructure in good repair. 

The States had been given a preliminary estimate about the cost 

that would be required under section 209 versus what they are 

paying now, that the difference would be about $100 million. But 

last Friday, Amtrak indicated the cost for States would be $120 

million, a 20 percent increase. 

States don’t feel they have received the level of detail necessary 

to support the new additional costs. The States that are assuming 

this new fiscal responsibility need to be able to justify expenses to 

their State legislatures and leadership. The last thing we would 

want to happen is for States to be forced to reduce service come October 1 because the new cost discrepancies are not resolved. 

So I wonder what you are doing to work with Amtrak and the 

States to ensure that the costs are being allocated appropriately 

among the various entities and that the costs are adequately justified to all parties concerned. 

Mr. SZABO. Yes, Congressman, I think several things. 

First off, under the statute, actually, the Surface Transportation 

Board is the governing body that has the authority to adjudicate 

any disputes between the States and Amtrak in the numbers. But 

we believe there is an important role that we have to play in making sure that there is full transparency to the numbers, that there 

is a good understanding of what constitute these numbers, that 

there is a fair allocation of these numbers. And so, you know, we 

are engaging with both Amtrak and the States to try and better 

clarify the understanding of those figures. 

In addition, as part of our budget proposal and our reauthorization proposal, you know, we do propose that there be transitional 

assistance for the States so the burden doesn’t just drop on them 

like an anvil. 

And it is not new money for this fiscal year. It is money that 

originally would have been a part of Amtrak’s budget that now 

would go to help the States with the first year of their payment of 

their 209 obligations and taper off in subsequent years, you know, 

to a point to where it completely diminishes. And then it does become the State’s full responsibility to pay the cost of operating 

their corridor service. 

So we think there are two roles that we can be helpful in: one, 

in better understanding the number, ensuring transparency, and 

then providing this tapering-down financial assistance. 

Mr. PRICE. I want to get to that in just a moment, but can you 

shed light at this moment on this recent shift, on this recent 20 

percent increase in the estimated cost? 

Mr. SZABO. I do not have those figures. You know, but staff is 

working with the other staffs at the States and Amtrak to try and 

better understand accurate costs. 

Mr. PRICE. And you can submit that for the record, the justification or the rationale? 

Mr. SZABO. We will get you something for the record, definitely. 
545

Mr. PRICE. Your numbers. 

Now, the fiscal 2014 budget, to come to that—— 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. 

Mr. PRICE [continuing]. Includes $300 million for State corridors, 

including the 209 transitional assistance. And recently you indicated that, of this $300 million, $85 million be designated for transition assistance and the remaining $215 million for equipment. 

How did you arrive at these funding levels? How is this funding 

going to be distributed to the States? Can you provide additional 

information on what equipment costs you have in mind here? 

Mr. SZABO. Yeah, part of the responsibility that the States end 

up assuming under PRIIA section 209 is the capital costs relative 

to the equipment. And so the additional costs that are in there are 

making sure that legacy costs are addressed, you know, as the 

States meet their new responsibility, you know, for maintaining the 

equipment as well as replenishing and replacing the equipment. 

And it would be a grant application process. The States would 

need to apply to us, and we would administer that grant, taking 

a look at their numbers for operating as well as the capital costs 

that they would be responsible for. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman. 

This has to do with Iowa more specifically, but, as you know, the 

Chicago to Iowa City passenger rail project is under way, with the 

Illinois portion of the project from Chicago to Moline having started. And Iowa is still working on a service development plan to analyze the project—— 

Mr. SZABO. Right. Right. 

Mr. LATHAM [continuing]. To build it out all the way to Council 

Bluffs, Omaha. 

Recently, $18 million of Iowa’s project funding was transferred to 

the Illinois portion of the project to cover a ‘‘cost change.’’ I am told 

that this transfer is not in accordance with the agreement in principle between Iowa DOT and the Illinois DOT. We were advised 

that the FRA made the decision to shift the funding. 

Can you tell me what statutory authority under which you 

stepped in and carried out the shifting of the funds, especially since 

cost overruns are expressly defined as costs over and above the 

amount funded by the Federal intercity passenger rail funding? 

Mr. SZABO. Chairman, we are very comfortable that the decision 

that we made was not only authorized but proper. For the record, 

we will actually cite whatever—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Statutory authority. 

Mr. SZABO [continuing]. Statute that is appropriate there. 

[The information follows:] 

No statutory authority was provided by FRA to the Committee as of time of printing.

Mr. SZABO. But the key here is, because the construction is now 

moving forward on Chicago to Moline, there are now costs that the 

Illinois side of the project are incurring that they otherwise would 

not have incurred. And so it was appropriate—these were costs 

that actually would have later fallen into the Iowa side of the 

project.
546

And so it is not that money was taken from Iowa; it is that the 

actual cost got shifted, and therefore the dollars, likewise, got shifted.

Mr. LATHAM. Federal funds are not supposed to cover State cost 

overruns.

Mr. SZABO. It is not about a cost overrun. We will be able to— 

for the record, we will make sure that we get you a very, very clear 

breakdown on our decision. I am comfortable with our decision and 

believe it is the right one. 

And for the record, you know, we are holding that Iowa piece in 

abeyance, hoping that Iowa chooses to move forward, but it is the 

last of our high-speed rail grants that is not obligated at this point. 

So, you know—— 

Mr. LATHAM. What is your definition in that case of ‘‘highspeed’’?

Mr. SZABO. Under the high-speed rail program. Actually, Congress’ definition, the statute that Congress established under 

PRIIA, made the definition speeds up to 110 miles per hour. And 

that is Iowa DOT’s vision for that project. 

In our case, under our program, that would actually be the second tier of service. That would be what we would call regional express service that falls into that 90-mile-per-hour to 125-mile-perhour category. 

Mr. LATHAM. When it was proposed, they said it would be 53 

miles an hour. 

Mr. SZABO. Yeah, I do know what Iowa’s vision is. Like I say, 

Iowa DOT’s vision for that project is 110-mile-per-hour service. So 

it is the second category. 

It certainly may have qualified or could have qualified under the 

first tier, under feeder service, you know, that would fall into the 

top-end speeds of 79 to 90 miles per hour. But your State DOT, 

their vision is for 110-mile-per-hour service on that line. 

Mr. LATHAM. Your budget—I don’t know if I have time for this in this round, but your budget includes a vision for a 5-year, $40- 

billion rail proposal. Secretary LaHood, responding to my question 

as to when the administration would formally submit its reauthorization proposal, stated that the President was busy with issues of 

gun control, immigration reform, and sequestration. 

Further, he stated that receiving a proposal from the administration was contingent upon, basically, Congress taking action on immigration reform, gun control, and sequestration. That is interesting to me, since the President insisted on sequestration himself 

and he has not made any proposal as far as immigration reform 

or gun control. 

Are you at least working on your reauthorization proposal, or are 

you waiting for gun control and immigration and sequestration to 

be addressed before you start? Or what is the—— 

Mr. SZABO. From a rail perspective, we are absolutely working on 

our reauthorization proposal. And what you have before you is, you 

know, that blueprint. 

We clearly believe that rail is the mode of opportunity, it is the 

mode of need when you take a look at our transportation challenges, and that we need to achieve parity for rail, like we have 

for other transportation modes, ensuring a dedicated fund set up 
547

for rail investments and making sure that we can advance the safe, 

reliable, and efficient movement of people and goods. And we think 

rail has a significant role to play. 

Mr. LATHAM. Just to complete the thought, what circumstances 

will you be permitted to formally submit your reauthorization, and 

when can we expect it? Because we have issues here that you are 

talking about, amounts that we don’t know, they are just mystery 

amounts, in what you are talking about as far as the big proposal 

in your budget. 

Mr. SZABO. We look forward to continuing to work with your staff 

to have provide all information that we are able to provide in moving forward. 

Mr. LATHAM. When do you expect and under what circumstances 

will you have the reauthorization proposal to us? 

Mr. SZABO. Well, I am not in a position where I can speak about 

DOT’s reauthorization proposal. But like I say, certainly from a rail 

perspective, we have given you a great blueprint here, and we look 

forward to continuing to provide additional information to try and 

make this vision a reality. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. PASTOR. In my round of questioning when we talked about 

planning, at the end of your testimony you brought up the Northeast Corridor and talked about funds, that they were going to lapse 

at the end of the fiscal year. And you showed some concern, and 

so I go back to that so that you may further explain what your concern is and, if it does lapse, what are your plans so that we have 

an idea of how you propose to address it. 

Mr. SZABO. Well, of course, the hopes would be to find a legislative fix so Amtrak could have access to the $86 million that was 

intended for their use for Hurricane Sandy remediation. And so we 

need to work with the committee and make sure we come up with 

language that folks are, you know, comfortable with to hopefully 

make those dollars available so Amtrak can move forward with 

some very important projects in the Northeast. 

Mr. PASTOR. All right. 

In your budget, you have $675 million to address Amtrak’s stateof-good-repair backlog and to replace aging equipment on the 

Northeast Corridor. You also have the moneys that was available 

through Sandy. 

How is that being coordinated so that the money is being spent 

in a more efficient way so that we don’t have duplication or something falls through the crack? Because, obviously, you are dealing 

with Sandy problems now and you want to repair things up to 

state. So there must be some similarity in the situation. 

Mr. SZABO. Yeah. Well, I would break it down into three components. You know, there are those projects that need to move forward today to make repairs to damage caused by Hurricane Sandy 

and to try and harden the resiliency of those assets to make sure 

that they can withstand a storm in the future. 

But over and above that is the serious backlog of state of good 

repair on the Northeast Corridor. And so if you take a look at our 

program under current passenger rail services, over the life of the 
548

5-year proposal that we are putting out there, we are looking to 

bring the entire Northeast Corridor to a state of good repair. 

Now, that doesn’t allow it to grow, you know, for the future. It 

only allows it to function today at its, you know, peak efficiency. 

For it to grow for the future, you actually have to go down into the 

second leg of our budget proposal in the rail service improvement 

program. And Amtrak then would be able to apply for the grants 

that would be available there to start meeting, you know, that vision for the future, with true 220-mile-per-hour trains and the ability to grow the services based on market needs. 

Mr. PASTOR. But I guess the crux of the question is, you probably 

have infrastructure and equipment that was injured by Sandy 

which probably was part of the backlog that you need to bring into 

good repair. And so what I guess the question is: In dealing with 

the situation that is similar to that, how are you doing that to ensure that, once you deal with the damage brought by Sandy and 

being part of the backlogs, that you can accomplish the repair so 

it will go for the period of time you anticipate? 

Mr. SZABO. Through good transparency through our grant oversight management of Amtrak. You know, those are exactly the 

types of things that we would be drilling down into to ensure that 

there is no level of duplication. So it would be through our grant 

management program. 

Mr. PASTOR. And is some of the effort—as I understand, there 

was a committee that was looking at the coordination of the damage and repair dealing with Sandy. As I recall, it was Secretary 

Donovan who was kind of the head of that committee? 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. PASTOR. I am assuming, then, you also have people on that 

effort. And how are you being informed of what—— 

Mr. SZABO. No, you bet we do, Congressman, that we are engaged in that effort with Secretary Donovan. And we are doing our 

due diligence, our oversight to make sure we are comfortable with 

the accuracy of the numbers that get submitted to us and, again, 

through our grant oversight, then making sure that it is not duplicated elsewhere. 

Mr. PASTOR. Okay. 

I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. I thank the gentleman. 

Just to kind of go back over a little bit on the proposal, you realize for us to consider your rail proposal we need to understand 

every detail of it here. And without—— 

Mr. SZABO. Sure. 

Mr. LATHAM [continuing]. A copy, it is impossible to understand 

it.

On the very first page of your budget justification, it says, ‘‘The 

rail proposal is integral to the President’s plan to spur immediate 

job creation and economic growth through investment in transportation infrastructure.’’ And, it certainly appears that you believe 

the rail reauthorization proposal is important. I am really hopeful, 

eternally optimistic that you will find it important enough to actually send it to us so we can see it. 

Is there—you don’t have any timeline as to when you will have 

the rail proposal? 
549

Mr. SZABO. Well, we will continue to make information available 

to you and continue to work with your staff to, you know, fill in 

whatever questions it is that you have. 

Mr. LATHAM. We want to know what your proposal is. 

Mr. SZABO. I mean, the document before you is the blueprint that 

really lays it out, the different components of, you know, how we 

ensure that we are investing in the future of safety by expanding 

our risk-reduction program, confidential close-calls reporting, investing in the technology that we need to advance safety, making 

sure that we are doing a better job of tracking and following data. 

It is an invaluable way to become that much more efficient with 

safety.

And then making sure that we have the ability not only to bring 

the existing passenger rail assets, the Amtrak network—broken 

down by business line, again, for that full transparency and accountability—but bringing it to a state of good repair. And then allowing the opportunities for States and regions to continue to do 

good planning to meet their future transportation needs. Have the 

opportunity to apply for capital grants for freight and passenger 

rail investments that have a clear basis in market need, you know, 

and that have clear public benefits. 

And advance a research and development program that, again, 

not only meets our safety needs but allows us to meet the next generation of rail needs, advancements in the Transportation Research 

Center in Pueblo, Colorado, instead of having to do some of this 

testing of equipment overseas, to have the ability to do that here 

in the United States. 

To make sure we are doing good workforce development. If you 

take a look at the railroad industry, it is a whole group like me 

that are getting gray in—you know, everybody is going to be walking out the door and retiring together. And so for rail to meet the 

role that it is going to have to play, there has to be strong workforce development, not just for the industry itself, but to strengthen 

States’ and regions’ and the Federal Government’s ability to plan 

for and execute good rail projects. 

Mr. LATHAM. Well, I think one example, without any details of 

what the proposal is, is positive train control. Secretary LaHood 

stated that the problems with the PTC are financial rather than 

technical and that FRA was resolving the technical difficulties. 

Your budget requests an amount for PTC for Amtrak. I would add 

that we are not sure of the exact amount since you haven’t submitted the proposal, there is no reauthorization proposal. 

Does this mean that if we provide the mystery amount that is 

in your request, that you can achieve implementation by 2015? 

Mr. SZABO. I think the Secretary—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Do you see our dilemma? There are no specifics. 

Mr. SZABO. Let me help clarify the record. There are both financial as well as technical and programmatic challenges for the industry to meet full—full—PTC deployment by the 2015 deadline. 

Mr. LATHAM. Does Mr. LaHood know that? That is not what he 

said.

Mr. SZABO. No, he does. He does. And, again, I don’t want to pick 

at his words, but I will say this for the record: The financial challenges that he was talking about are what public agencies face, 
550

Amtrak as well as the commuter rail operators. The financial challenges for them are significant, very significant, and, without question, a hurdle for them to meet the 2015 deadline. 

For the freight rail industry, it is less of a financial challenge, 

and it is more the availability of radios and spectrum. 

And so the report that we submitted to Congress last fall, you 

know, really outlined the challenges that the industry is facing 

from a technical and programmatic standpoint. It does indicate 

that they will achieve partial deployment by 2015, but full deployment by 2015 is very unlikely. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. I will have a follow-up here, but I am out of 

time.

Mr. Price. 

Mr. PRICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator, let me turn to the high-speed and intercity passenger rail items in your budget. Your fiscal 2014 budget request 

includes $6.5 billion for a new national high-performance rail system.

Now, I understand this assumes a reconfigured authorization, so 

the program structure is somewhat undefined at this point. But I 

would like to ask you a few questions about how you see this program working. 

Mr. SZABO. Okay. 

Mr. PRICE. In the first place, how are you building on the key 

sections of PRIIA, section 301, 302, 501, which have established the 

capital grants programs for the States and for Amtrak? What are 

the continuities and the innovations here? 

Mr. SZABO. You know, our goal to date has been to build out good 

projects, build them on time and on budget. And North Carolina 

has been a great example of a State that has been doing just that, 

with a couple of their projects coming in actually ahead of schedule 

and under budget. The program that we have put together allows 

those good projects to continue on. 

North Carolina has just done a tremendous job in making capital 

improvements between Raleigh and Charlotte that are not only 

going to increase the speed of trains but it is going to improve the 

reliability of service. Most importantly, it is going to improve the 

safety of the service and the safety for motorists. 

Mr. PRICE. Well, as you know, this has been an aspiration for a 

long time. And we do feel like the State has been rewarded for the 

early planning and early investment it made in passenger rail. But 

there is no way this would have happened without the funds provided through the Recovery Act. And we are grateful for that, and 

we appreciate your commendation of what we have done with that 

money.

Mr. SZABO. Yeah, the Sealed Corridor that you folks are building 

out and the ability to work with those communities and understand 

their vehicular and pedestrian traffic needs and coming up with a, 

you know, very comprehensive plan to close crossings, build overpasses, build underpasses, it just improves the efficiency of the rail 

service while improving the safety of the rail service and the safety 

for motorists and pedestrians. And the fact that 50 grade crossings 

are going to be closed between Raleigh and Charlotte by working 

with those communities is just a huge achievement. 
551

Mr. PRICE. Well, I want to thank you for your commitment to developing a 21st-century rail system. Within that $6.4 billion is $3.7 billion for new intercity rail development. That appears to be a successor to the previous highspeed rail program. Unfortunately, as you know, high-speed rail 

hasn’t been funded since fiscal 2010. That is 3 years of zero dollars 

for this program. We, of course, hope we can avoid another year 

where this investment gets completely shut out. 

We tend to hear in the news about some of the struggles with 

specific projects. I wonder if you can give us a general idea of 

where things are with the existing Federal dollars and projects 

under way. You have just done that with respect to North Carolina, 

but where do we stand with the money that is still being spent out? 

And, of course, the implication is that this won’t last forever and 

that we pay a price for these successive years of zero funding. In 

the absence of new Federal funding, what evidence have you seen 

that States and localities are continuing to invest and have interest 

in high-speed rail? To what extent is that or might that fill some 

of the gap? 

Mr. SZABO. Yeah, there are several States that continue to not 

only make progress but move forward on their own dime on a limited basis. 

Our goal is to continue to build good projects, build them on 

time, build them on budget. And the success that I outlined in 

North Carolina is being captured essentially in every region that 

we have made investments in. 

In the Midwest, through the dollars that have been invested, 80 

percent of Chicago-Detroit will be at sustained speeds of 110 mile 

per hour. Approximately 75 percent of Chicago-St. Louis is going 

to be at those sustained speeds of 110 miles per hour with an entirely new fleet of equipment all funded from the existing investments. Much of that work is already operating today. Orders have 

been placed. And so it is on schedule and on budget, with some 

things actually coming in below bid estimate for the equipment. 

You go out to the Northeast Corridor, and good work has been 

done on the corridor itself to improve the efficiency, reliability, and 

safety of existing operations on the Northeast Corridor, while nice 

improvements have been made on some feeder routes. New service 

was returned to Brunswick and Freeport, Maine, to great celebration. Ridership is beating all of the projections. Revenues are beating all of the projections. 

You go out to the Pacific Northwest, we just had a ribbon-cutting 

yesterday on the King Street Station. That work is complete. Not 

only does it enhance the efficiency of the station, more importantly 

it enhanced the safety of the station by making it able to withstand 

a seismic event, which is important out there, making renovations 

to prevent mudslides from blocking out the corridor, and a series 

of improvements that are going to reduce trip times, improve reliability substantially, and, again, enhance the safety of the operations there, and allow the Pacific Northwest to achieve their goal 

of carving off an hour between Portland and Seattle while advancing service to hourly departures. 

So, I mean, you can go to every region and there is a success 

story of this nature that has already happened today. 
552

Mr. PRICE. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I know my time has expired. Let me just ask 

you——

Mr. LATHAM. It has more than expired. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. I want to ask for an item for the record, if 

I might, and I will be very brief. 

Mr. LATHAM. You are more than welcome. 

Mr. PRICE. I appreciate those success stories and commend you 

for them. 

Mr. PASTOR. Let me yield a minute of my time. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. The gentleman is keeping us honest. 

Mr. PRICE. All right. 

I appreciate the success stories and commend you for them, but 

I do want to know the other side of the story. Maybe you can furnish this for the record. I want to know what gets stopped in its 

tracks, so to speak, what doesn’t get completed, what plans don’t 

get fulfilled if we continue with this pattern of no funding. I mean, 

we really do need to know that side of the story. 

Mr. SZABO. We will provide that for the record. I think there is 

good information we can provide from both standpoints, a very 

clear update on what has been done and then what good work gets 

put at risk if additional funding isn’t made available. And of particular concern would be the work on the Northeast Corridor. 

Mr. PRICE. That is exactly what I think we need. Thank you. 

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. PASTOR. I think in the last set of questions, you brought up 

the Pueblo, Colorado, center. 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. 

Mr. PASTOR. Before I ask a question on that, let me go back to 

what—your budget proposes to fund reach and development in two 

separate accounts. The budget requests $32 million in general 

funds for railroad research and development and $55 million in 

mandatory funds for a new railroad research, development, and 

technology program. 

The basic question that I have is, why can’t you do the research 

under the one program? What requires you to now set up two programs?

Mr. SZABO. Well, the first one is what has been our historic, traditional program, which has more of a safety focus. I mean, we 

have done some great work under that program. And, actually, I 

would love to come brief you on some of the good work that we 

have done under that program. 

But the second part of it is taking a look at what it is really 

going to take to grab the future. 

Mr. PASTOR. Does the second part mean the $55 million? 

Mr. SZABO. Yes. Yes. And to make sure that we can upgrade our 

test facility there in Pueblo to ensure that, instead of having to 

farm out this testing across the globe to other countries, that we 

have the ability to test high-speed rail equipment here in the 

United States, to make sure we are doing the good workforce development that is not only going to meet the industry’s needs but, 

again, government at the State, regional, local, and Federal level 

to plan for and execute good rail projects, to make sure that once 

again our country captures the opportunity to be an exporter of 
553

this intellectual property, this talent, and this equipment instead 

of having to import it from Asia and from Europe. 

We really want the United States of America to become a leader 

in rail. We are a leader today in freight rail. We want to see that 

role grow and be enhanced. And we want to become a leader in 

passenger rail through a balanced program that embraces highspeed, regional, and good feeder service, just like they have in Europe and Asia. 

Mr. PASTOR. So the $25 million that is going to the Pueblo, Colorado, test site or facility, that is for high-speed rail technology? 

Mr. SZABO. Yeah. It allows us to upgrade the facility there to 

meet our future needs—in particular, the ability for it to become 

a world-class test center for high-speed rail equipment. 

It is a world-class test center in a lot of other areas. We want 

to make sure that it keeps that world-class setting in particular in 

this area, where we are a little bit deficient, has the ability for 

grow.

Mr. PASTOR. And the remaining $30 million will go where under 

that new account? 

Mr. SZABO. Again, that new account is about upgrading the test 

center and the workforce development. For the record, we will 

itemize out for you everything that falls under that category, Congressman.

Mr. PASTOR. Okay. All right. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you, Mr. Pastor. 

The California High-Speed Rail Authority’s latest business plan assumes a total of $32 billion in Federal funding for the project 

over the 10 years from fiscal year 2014 to 2023 period. Congress 

so far has only provided $3.3 billion of that funding. California’s 

funding plan assumes another $28 billion over the next 10 years. 

Is it the policy of the administration to provide that additional $28 billion for this project over the next 10 years? 

Mr. SZABO. Well, let me say this. Under our program, this is a 

grant program to where you have to apply for on a competitive 

basis and be deemed the most meritorious—one of the most meritorious proposals in that hopper. So there is no automatic guarantee that California gets dollars. 

Now, having said that, we remain very committed to that project. 

We remain very bullish on what we believe that project is going to 

mean for the people of California. And, certainly, the fact that, you 

know, the bids just opened last week came in substantially below 

budget—the range of the budget estimates was, I think, between 

$1.2 billion to $1.8 billion, and they came in less than a billion dollars. So, you know, we are already going to be able to start work 

out there and do it under budget. 

And, of course, the goal here is to make sure that as incremental 

pieces are constructed that they have immediate usability, and so 

there is never an island that is left out there that doesn’t have 

value that it can provide the traveling public. 

Mr. LATHAM. So what you are saying for California, there is no 

certainty that you are going to continue to fund that $28 billion. 

And if that is the case, how can they proceed if they are not knowing if the funding is going to be there? 
554

Mr. SZABO. They have to compete just like anybody else. They 

have to compete just like anybody else. Now, again, we remain 

committed to the project. We think it is a worthy project. But they 

have to compete. 

And, certainly, their goal needs to be to continue to do good 

work, build out with the dollars that they have available, and, of 

course, get that project to a point to where there is a tipping point 

for private investment. Private investment is going to have to be 

a very, very important part of the California high-speed rail 

project.

And so it is going to be that balance between the public dollars 

that the Federal Government and the State provides to get to a 

point where private dollars can come in and essentially get it over 

the tipping point. 

Mr. LATHAM. I am still very concerned about uncertainty out 

there. Especially, because in December last year, you amended the 

grant agreement with the California High-Speed Rail Authority to 

allow the authority to spend its Federal grants first. 

Mr. SZABO. You bet we did, because it saves the taxpayers $100 million to $150 million. So, you know, this is consistent with—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Which taxpayers? 

Mr. SZABO. All taxpayers. It saves the project, it saves the project $100 million to $150 million. 

And so this is one of those wise things that you do to save dollars. It is consistent, it is consistent with other grant programs inside the DOT. There is nothing unique or unusual here. It is just 

a sound business practice. 

Mr. LATHAM. Well, it is unusual to have the Federal Government 

fund 100 percent of something that is supposed to be—— 

Mr. SZABO. No, Congressman—no, because the match—California’s match is still required. Their 50-percent match does not go 

away. It comes into the project later. 

But, again, this is consistent, this is consistent with the approach 

used in other DOT modes. And so it is not something that is 

unique.

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. 

Mr. SZABO. And, Chairman, if I can, you talked about the uncertainty, and you are right. You know, for private investors to come 

in, there has to be certainty. For States to do good planning, there 

has to be certainty. 

And this is all the more reason why we need to have a program 

that goes on into the future, so States can do the good planning 

that they need, so private investors have the opportunity to come 

into these projects with that certainty that they are going to be 

looking for, and, again, that rail is put on parity with the other 

transportation modes like aviation, highways, and transit, not left 

out there like an orphan. 

Mr. LATHAM. What, basically, you are saying is that the stimulus, the $2.6 billion, this is a way of spending that out before the 

deadline in 2017, as far as expending those funds. 

Mr. SZABO. Chairman, I would argue that it is a way of maximizing return to the taxpayers by saving $100 million to $150 million on the segment. 

Mr. LATHAM. How does it save that money, again? 
555

Mr. SZABO. For the record, we will provide that to you or come 

brief that to you. But that is the projection. That is the projection, 

sir.

Mr. LATHAM. Save the Federal Government and taxpayers? 

Mr. SZABO. Save the project. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. Say you fund 100 percent or 80 percent over 

the next 2 years of the project, and the project—I mean, California, 

I don’t know if you have heard, is not in great financial condition. 

If they cannot come up with the money, the project dies, are they 

still on the hook for the Federal part? 

Mr. SZABO. Well, absolutely. 

You know, two things. Again, first off, we are ensuring that 

every piece that gets built has functional utility, has a use that the 

traveling public will be able to take advantage of, to ensure that 

there is never an orphan left out there as this project, step by step, 

moves forward. 

In addition, in addition, California is absolutely on the hook for 

the balance of that Federal grant. Through our grant agreements, 

we have assured that. There is no free ride here. 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. 

Mr. Price, did you have questions? 

Mr. PRICE. No further questions. 

Mr. LATHAM. Mr. Pastor. 

Mr. PASTOR. I don’t have any further questions. 

Mr. LATHAM. You are very short-winded. 

Mr. PASTOR. Well, he did such a good job here, I—— 

Mr. LATHAM. He did. I know. 

Mr. PASTOR. And I read all the material. But there will be questions for the record, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. On California, if we are funding 100 percent initially—you are well aware that there are potential delays of the 

project. I think there are some lawsuits out there. They haven’t 

bought the land yet. 

Mr. SZABO. Actually, they have started land acquisition this 

week.

Mr. LATHAM. They haven’t bought the land yet. Are you saying 

that if this gets bumped into fiscal year 2014–2015, that that 100 

percent guarantee is going to extend to those years, then, if, in fact, 

they are not ready to go? 

Mr. SZABO. I am not sure I follow the question, but, certainly, let 

me say this: Our job is to make sure that the grant agreement that 

we have with California is met. It is our obligation to enforce that. 

And, certainly, we are going to ensure that the terms of that agreement are adhered to. 

Mr. LATHAM. But you have a 100 percent guarantee for fiscal 

year 2013. You are paying—Federal share is 100 percent for this 

year.

Mr. SZABO. Again, I am not sure I understand your question, 

Chairman, but—— 

Mr. LATHAM. It is your agreement with them. 

Mr. SZABO [continuing]. Again, the approach that we are using, 

there is nothing unique or unusual about it. In fact, it is the encouraged practice in some of the other modes in cases of this na-
556

ture. It is often used. I don’t believe it is the first time we have 

done it in FRA. 

You know, so, yes, it was a different approach from what our 

original grant agreement said. But based on the fact that it saves 

$100 million to $150 million and is widely used in other transportation modes, it was deemed to be the most appropriate step in 

going forward. It is about saving costs inside the project. 

Mr. LATHAM. The California project’s business plan assumes Fed- eral funding for the project of $2.2 billion per year in fiscal year 

2015 and again in 2016 and again in 2017, rising to $3 billion per 

year thereafter. 

If next year Congress enacts its 2015 appropriation and authorization agenda and the amount provided for the new high-speed 

rail projects in 2015 is the same as it was in 2011, 2012, and 2013, 

which is zero, do you have a contingency plan in place to assist 

California for an orderly wind-down—if you need to shut down the 

project?

Mr. SZABO. Well, I would certainly hope, in its wisdom, Congress 

will understand the need to move forward with making rail a viable transportation mode and putting it on parity with highways, 

aviation, and transit. And so I would hope Congress, in its wisdom, 

would choose to move forward with an approach to where States 

and regions can plan and execute with certainty in meeting the 

traveling public’s transportation needs. 

Under the grant agreement with California high-speed rail, we 

have carved it up into pieces to, again, ensure that there are immediate transportation benefits for each and every piece that gets 

built, to ensure that there is always a return to the public. 

Now, it would be a crying shame if the people of California aren’t 

able to reap the full benefits and efficiencies that come out of the 

build-out of that entire system, but our contingency is to make sure 

that at least each piece that gets built has functionality. 

Mr. LATHAM. You know, you are fully aware that the funding has 

been zero. You are still spending stimulus money. 

Mr. SZABO. Well, we have allocated—we have, you know, allocated all of our dollars, and, you know, good projects continue to 

be built out. There is about $3.6 billion in projects that are either 

complete, under construction, or set to go into construction. Next 

2 years are going to be our biggest construction years on record. 

And so, you know, again, this is about ensuring a pipeline of 

projects, allowing States and regions certainty, the ability to do 

good planning. You know, we have been building highways for 80 

years now. State DOTs are good at it. They always have a supply 

of projects on the shelf as dollars become available. 

For rail to reach, you know, reach the—the level that it has to 

reach in helping eliminate congestion, reducing fuel consumption, 

improving air quality, and being part of a balanced transportation 

network, it has to be put on parity with the other transportation 

modes.

Mr. LATHAM. Back in October of 2009, the California authority 

stated in its application form that it would address the STB jurisdiction issue. And it seems pretty clear that the authority has 

known of the need to address the question, yet waited till the last 

minute to properly request the determination as to the jurisdiction. 
557

And the DOT has not properly ensured the authority’s compliance, 

at this point. 

What conversations or communications, oversight actions have 

you had with the authority over the past 4 years to ensure that 

they comply with the construction licensing authority? 

Mr. SZABO. Well, I think it is important to note that never at any 

time were they in noncompliance of our agreement. And so, you 

know, it is—— 

Mr. LATHAM. They need it to go forward. 

Mr. SZABO. And it is a matter of timing. But certainly there was 

never, ever, ever, sir, a point where they were in noncompliance. 

And so it is a matter of timing of when they felt it was appropriate 

for them to move forward with applying to the STB. 

Certainly, we believe that sooner is better than later. But the important thing is that we do not view the filing or the decision of 

the STB as a significant risk to the project or a significant risk for 

delay. As I mentioned, California is moving forward with land acquisition now, as we speak. And so there are several things that 

they are going to be able to continue to do concurrently with engineering, acquisition, as they await a ruling from the STB on construction.

Mr. LATHAM. Apparently, Congressman Denham had to write a 

letter to remind them that they needed authority. And they are 

asking for an expedited review. 

Mr. SZABO. They were aware that they needed authority. So, 

again, it is just a matter of timing, a matter of timing of when they 

chose to apply. 

Mr. LATHAM. But they have known for 4 years they had to do it. 

Mr. SZABO. Yeah, and we have known. 

Mr. LATHAM. And they waited till the very last second to do it. 

Mr. SZABO. It is matter of timing. I mean, again, it is—— 

Mr. LATHAM. Okay. 

Do you have any other questions, Mr. Pastor? 

Mr. PASTOR. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. If not, we will, I am sure, be submitting some questions for the record. 

[The information follows:] 
558

Questions for the Record 

Submitted by Rep. Herrera Beutler 

THUD Hearing: Federal Rail Administration 

April2S'h, 2013 

1. MAP-21 made great strides in streamlining the NEPA process, which will save money 

and decrease project completion time. Unfortunately, due to a lack of a rail title these 

streamlining measures do not extend to rail. Would you support similar streamlining 

efforts for rail infrastructure, and what impact do you believe the savings would have on 

the agency's budget and the nation's ability to complete projects? 

Response: 

Some MAP-21 provisions are broadly applicable to include coverage of rail projects. FRA would 

be pleased to work with Congress to consider other appropriate streamlining proposals. Any 

budgetary impact from NEP A efficiencies would result from project development cost savings 

and would allow more funds to be spent on construction. Efficiencies of this nature could save 

some project planning time and could allow FRA staff to devote more support to rail project 

refinement that would enhance outcomes. 

2. How does FRA work with other USDOT agencies, such as FHW A, on environmental 

compliance when projects have multiple agency participation? 

Response: 

FRA follows CEQ NEP A regulations that call for identification of a lead Federal agency. Other 

Federal agencies can serve as a cooperating agency or in limited circumstances as a joint-lead 

agency. FRA serves as the lead agency for some projects and for those led by FHW A or FT A, 

FRA typically serves as a cooperating agency. DOT operating administrations coordinate 

project planning and review where joint investments and joint benefits are expected. Multimodal coordination among DOT operating administrations is evident on projects across the 

country, such as Denver Union Station and the CREATE program in Chicago. 

3. What role do you see the Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) loan 

program playing in addressing strategic national freight system needs? 

Response: 

As described in FRA's FY 2014 budget request, FRA is interested in working with Congress on 

rail reauthorization proposals for the RRlF program that improve project and program 

administration, as well as to better integrate the program with the goals and objectives of the 

proposed National High-Performance Rail System (NHPRS). The goal of the NHPRS is to 

improve both passenger and freight rail networks, with a particular focus on increasing the share 

of intermodal goods that are transported by freight rail. The RRIF program will continue to play 

an important role in achieving these goals. 
559

FRA works to ensure that all financial assistance programs (both grants and loans) work together 

in a cohesive and comprehensive fashion, improving the Nation's passenger and freight rail 

networks through an integrated investment portfolio. FRA will work with Congress on RRlFrelated reauthorization proposals aimed at increasing the use of the authorized amounts under 

this program to address the nation's freight needs through potential changes to eligibility 

requirements, application processes, administrative provisions, technical assistance, or other 

program elements, consistent with the priorities set forth in Section 502( c) of Title V of the 

Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976, as amended. 

4. How does FRA plan to participate in the more integrated multi-modal national freight 

strategy? How will national rail corridors be supported through the strategy? 

Response: 

In August 2012, the Secretary announced the formation of the Freight Policy Council, which will 

focus on improving the national freight network. The Council, which will be chaired by the 

Deputy Secretary, brings together DOT leadership from highways, rail, ports, and airports, as 

well as others, into a coordinated multimodal initiative that focuses on freight and cross-modal 

solutions. As Administrator of the Federal Railroad Administration, I am a member of the 

Council. Part of the Council's business will be the implementation of the freight provisions of 

MAP-21. The Secretary and Deputy Secretary stated that we will take a systems approach in 

meeting our freight transportation needs. 

In addition, on May 30, the Secretary announced the members of the newly formed National 

Freight Advisory Committee. This diverse group will advise and make recommendations to the 

Secretary aimed at improving our freight transportation system. 

These initiatives represent a multimodal approach in developing the National Freight Strategic 

Plan. FRA has played a major role ensuring that rail is a part of the multi modal conversation and 

will continue to playa role as we move forward in implementing MAP-21. The Freight Policy 

Council and thc National Freight Advisory Committee will recommend strategies on how best to 

support our freight corridors, which include rail. 

FRA has also taken the lead on TIGER projects that require intermodal coordination and 

strengthen intermodal teams, including the Tower 55 project, a major rail chokepoint that upon 

completion will reduce rail congestion for both passenger and freight as well as improve the 

highway/rail interface by replacing at grade crossings in some cases with underpasses. Idling 

trains waiting to clear this chokepoint block traffic and create highway congestion at these 

crossings. In addition, a small but important project is the Oklahoma Freight Rail Upgrade. This 

project improves a rail line in Oklahoma to move crude oil from the developing oil fields of the 

Anadarko Basin, to connect with the pipeline in Cushing, OK. Crude oil at the fields is trucked 

to the railroad, where it is then loaded onto rail tank cars, then transported to Cushing, where it 

will go into the pipeline to the Gulf coast. 
560

Question for the Record 

Submitted by Rep. David Joyce 

Federal Railroad Administration FY 2014 Budget Request 

Question: As you know, the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 established a completion date 

for the installation of Positive Train Control systems by December 31,2015, but most railroads 

will likely not be able to complete full implementation by this date. Can you walk me through 

the challenges that railroads are facing as Positive Train Control is implemented? 

Answer: The challenges listed below are explained in further detail in FRA's August 2012 

Report to Congress, "Positive Train Control: Implementation Status, Issues, and Impacts." I 

have included a copy of the report in my response for your reference. As stated on page 1 of the 

report: 

The technical obstacles that have been identified to date fall into seven different 

categories: 

• Communications Spectrum Availability 

• Radio Availability 

• Design Specification Availability 

• Back Office Server and Dispatch System Availability 

• Track Database Verification 

• Installation Engineering 

• Reliability and Availability 

The programmatic obstacles fall into two categories: 

• Budgeting and Contracting 

• Stakeholder Availability 

To date, railroads have raised and expended more than $1.5 billion of private capital to 

try and resolve these issues. The Federal Government has distributed $50 million through 

the Railroad Safety Technology Grant Program. PTe implementation is also an eligible 

activity for grants to Amtrak and commuter railroads under the FRA's FYl4 budget 

proposal. 
561

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree 

Questions for the Record 

April 25, 2013 

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Subcommittee 

Hearing on Federal Railroad Administration 

Development and Current Status of Section 209 of the 

Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA) Pricing Policy 

Under Section 209 of PRlIA, Congress set in motion a collaborative process between 

Amtrak and the States operating state corridor routes within Amtrak's intercity passenger 

rail network to set a single, nation-wide pricing policy for operating and capital costs. 

Amtrak is in ongoing discussions with a working group appointed by the States for 

Passenger Rail and the AASHTO Standing Committee on Rail Transport, agreeing 

recently on a methodology for implementing the cost sharing regime beginning on 

October 1,2013. Over the course of these discussions, Amtrak has been using historical 

data to estimate each State's share of the costs to be assessed using this new methodology 

over the course of these discussions. However, Amtrak provided forecasts of each State's 

share of operating and capital costs for the first time on Friday, April 19,2013, and in 

most cases those forecasts were significantly higher than Amtrak's prior historically 

based cost estimates. After reviewing that communication, I find the detail provided to 

account for the increase inadequate. 

Pingree Ql: Has your department taken any action with respect to this letter? Do you 

agree with the accuracy of that forecast? Are the forecasted amounts consistent with 

Amtrak's FY14 budget request? Can your department provide a more detailed accounting 

for the increase? If not, can you direct Amtrak to provide that accounting to the States? 

Response: FRA is committed to the success of State corridors, which are a critical 

element of the national passenger rail network. FRA is coordinating closely with 

Amtrak and the affected States as all parties move toward fully implementing Section 

209 in FY 2014. In fact, FRA's FYl4 budget proposal includes transition assistance 

for States to phase in their financial responsibilities for their corridors. FRA believes 

that while this is a complex and difficult transition, it is progressing in a collaborative 

manner with a high likelihood of successful implementation. 

Since Amtrak provided operating and capital cost forecasts for FY 2014 service in 

April, FRA, Amtrak, and a representative group of State rail agencies-known as the 

"States Working Group"- have met twice to identify a path toward resolving 

outstanding concerns and completing contracts for FY 2014 service. As a result of 

these meetings, Amtrak and the States reached agreement on several of these issues 

and on revisiting other issues later in the process. Amtrak has now provided revised 

cost forecasts incorporating agreed-upon adjustments. As a further outcome of these 
562

meetings, Amtrak has committed to meeting with each State individually to review 

the cost forecasts in detail and make necessary adjustments as they are identified. 

FRA recognizes the value of establishing consistent standards for cost forecasts and 

regular corridor cost and performance reporting for both State corridors and longdistance routes. For this reason, FRA is prepared to assist the States and Amtrak with 

developing more transparent and mutually-agreeable forecasts and reports with the 

intention of incorporating lessons learned from this initial transition year and better 

meeting Amtrak's customers' needs in future cycles. 

Pingree Q2: I understand that this process has been collaborative thus far, and yet in last 

Friday's letter, Amtrak essentially issued an ultimatum, writing that in the event an 

affected state: "is not able to provide the funding required under the Section 209 

methodology, and/or does not execute an agreement with Amtrak consistent with the 

requirements of Section 209, Amtrak intends to discontinue" the relevant State Corridor 

line. Was this an appropriate statement for Amtrak to issue in light of its increased 

forecast? Would it be more constructive in your view to continue discussions over the 

forecast to allow a fuller understanding of the increase before stating the intent to 

discontinue service? 

Response: Amtrak's April letters to the governors of209-affected States fulfills the 

statutory requirement of 49 U.S.C. 24706(a), which requires Amtrak to provide 180 

days' noticc before discontinuing scrvice over a route. If Amtrak and any State are 

unable to reach an agreement before FY 2014 begins on October 1, then Amtrak 

would need to prepare for the possibility of discontinuing that State's service(s). 

FRA agrees that the States and Amtrak should continue discussions over the cost 

forecasts and contract provisions, and this is in fact occurring. As written in the 

notices, "Amtrak is committed to working with your State's rail office .. .in order to 

avoid discontinuing the service." FRA has observed Amtrak's adherence to this 

commitment after issuing these notices, and we intend to stay closely engaged 

throughout the transition process to ensure continued cooperation and successful 

resolution ofthe remaining challenges. 
563

Mr. LATHAM. I appreciate very much your testimony today. Look 

forward to working with you. We have a lot of challenges, obviously. We would love to see the reauthorization proposal so we 

could fill in some blanks as to what we need to do. 

But, with that, again, thank you for your testimony, and the 

committee is adjourned. 

Mr. SZABO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LATHAM. Thank you. 

(565)

OUTSIDE WITNESS TESTIMONY 
566

Statement of the Institute of Makers of Explosives 

Submitted by 

Cynthia Hilton 

Executive Vice President 

chilton@ime.org 

For the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies 

U.S. House of Representatives 

FY 2014 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration Budget Request 

Interest of the IME 

The IME is the safety and security association of the commercial explosives industry. Commercial 

explosives underpin the economy. They are essential to energy production, construction, 

demolition, and the manufacture of any metal/mineral product. Explosives are transported and 

used in every state. The ability to transport and distribute these products safely and securely is 

critical to this industry. At some point, virtually all explosives are transported by truck. Among 

these explosives are products classed as Division 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5 materials, which with other 

select hazardous materials, may only be transported by motor carriers holding a "hazardous 

materials safety permit" (HMSP) issued by FMCSA. According to program data, carriers of 

explosives make up the largest segment, roughly half, ofthe universe of HMSP holders. 

Our industry has maintained an exceptional safety record for decades. According to the Hazardous 

Materials Information System (HMIS), no deaths have been attributed to commercial explosives 

since the Department of Transportation began collecting data in the 1970s. Despite the safety 

record of our industry, we have members who struggle when it comes to maintaining their HMSP 

qualification. 

Implementation Issues 

HMSP holders failed to appreciate the full impact of the disqualifying out-of-service (005) 

thresholds when FMCSA finalized the HMSP rule in 2004. First, the preamble and the 

regulatory text set forth in the 2003 proposal, as well as the preamble to the HMSP final rule, 

describes the agency's intent to issue HMSPs to motor carriers with a "satisfactory" safety 

rating.' Those without a satisfactory safety rating would be eligible for a temporary HMSP if 

they have "a crash rate in the top 30 percent of the national average, or a driver, vehicle, 

hazardous materials, or total {OOS] rate in the top 30 percent of the national average." 

(Emphasis added.) Second, the "or total" 005 rate suggested that the 30 percent national 

average disqualification would, in the aggregate, disqualify only 30 percent of carriers. As 

FMCSA has implemented this program, however, these were not the standards that a carrier 

could rely on to obtain a permit. Instead, all carriers must perform to the 005 standard, 

irrespective of their safety rating. 

Since the HMSP program's inception in 2005, we have urged FMCSA, in meetings, letters, and 

petitions, to relook at this program and make needed reforms. Over these eight years, the 

, 68 £.Il49737. 49752 & 49753 (August 19. 2003); 69 £.Il39367, 39352 (June 30, 2004). 
567

2 

HMSP program has been plagued by administrative missteps including double countingDOS 

inspections and thousands of erroneous denials of applications. Last year, FMCSA provided 

"interim" relief by "fixing" the OOS disqualification rates. Prior to the "fix", disqualification 

rates were recalculated every two years, thereby exposing carriers to the risk of losing their 

permits simply because they were being judged against a different universe of carriers at a 

particular point in time. Still, questions remain unanswered about the statistical basis used by 

FMCSA to calculate the program's most critical criterion, the hazmat OOS rate. We have 

documented the inherent unfairness of a system that relies on OOS rates. Selection criteria for 

roadside inspections is not random (nor should it be given limited resources), which is to say 

that carriers do not have equal opportunity to amass "clean" inspections. Not all OOS 

violations are crash-causal, and some are inherently biased by personal judgment. Further, the 

methodology used to determine "significance" ofthe inspection data lacks statistical 

confidence. We do not object to a public policy requiring that motor carriers transporting 

hazmats be held to higher safety standards. However, we do object to the bias and uncertainty 

that the current HMSP program breeds, especially when the program has shown no nexus to 

safety enhancement. 

Safety Benefits of the HMSP Unproven 

FMCSA estimated that implementing the HMSP program would prevent seven hazmat truckrelated crashes per year. The agency stated that the safety benefits derived from the projected 

crash reductions would be "large because of the number of conventional crashes that may be 

prevented." This has not proved to be the case. The data generated after the eight years of the 

HMSP and during the eight years immediately preceding the implementation of the HMSP 

shows that HMSP holders are historically among the safest carriers on the road and that the 

program has had little impact on safety: 

HMSP 1997-2004 2005-2012 All Hazmat Highway Incidents 

Material 

199IHOO4 2005-2011 

Crashes Fatalities Crashes Fatalities Crashes Fatalities Crashes Fatalities 

Explosives 36 0 29 0 

(25 kg. 1.1, 

1.2,1.3& 

placarded 

1.5) 

RAM 16 0 19 0 

(HRCQ') 

TIH 55 61 "1 

Methane 4 3 0 

TOTAL 111 112 1 2,461 85 2.448 

Data trom the Hazardous Matenals InformatlOn System (HMIS), 3/11/2013. 

'" It may be that none of these crashes are highway route controlled quantities (HRCQ). From the data in HMIS, it was possible to eliminate 

some incidents that were clearly not HRCQ. Where there was doubt the incident was cQunted. 

** Anhydrous ammonia (M) intended for agricultural use. 

For HMSP holders, this safety record highlights the need for an immediate reconsideration of 

the disqualifying standards that are threatening their livelihoods. Keep in mind that the vast 

majority of carriers subject to the HMSP are not long-haul, freight-all-kinds carriers. They serve 

niche markets that rely on local, often rural delivery, and require speCialized equipment. As 

such, these carriers do not frequent routes with inspection stations. Once these carriers get 

81 
568

into trouble.based on the non-random, often subjective O(1S.caUs by inspectors,jt is.virtually 

impossible for these carriers to accrue sufficient "good" inspections to overcome the "bad." 

3 

For example, it is not uncommon for an HMSP holder to average 15 or fewer inspections in a 

year, but only inspection data from the 12 months prior to the expiration of the holder's permit 

is counted, and only holders with at least three inspections are considered "statistically 

significant" for purposes of the 005 disqualifications. If two of the inspections in this 

timeframe result in an 0052

, the carrier would need 28 "clean" inspections to requality. The 

later into the 12-month qualification period that the second 005 occurs, the more unlikely it is 

that a carrier could recover. Consider that two similarly situated carriers each receive two 005 

inspections, then one of the two obtains a third "clean" inspection. The carrier that received 

the clean inspection would lose its permit, the other would continue operating. Or consider 

that on any given day two similarly situated carriers could be "underwater,a because of their 

current mix of 005 and clean inspections. However, because one carrier's HMSP expires that 

day, that carrier loses its permit, while the other continues to operate. 

These specialized carriers do not have the option to carry non-HMSP freight while working to 

requality for a permit. The irony is that, when these carriers get into jeopardy, FMCSA does not 

routinely suspend or revoke the HMSP; rather carriers are allowed to operate until it is time to 

apply for renewal. The regulations allow for appeals when permits are suspended or revoked, 

but not if the carrier is applying for renewal. Under no circumstance may holders apply for a 

waiver of the 005 disqualification irrespective of their overall operational safety records. 

Request for Expedited Relief 

FMCSA accepted a petition for rulemaking from IME and other affected industry associations to 

reform the HMSP disqualification standards. While we are pleased that FMCSA has accepted 

our petition, we are disappointed that "the agency has determined that this rulemaking should 

not be initiated until the CSA Safety Fitness Determination (SFD) final rule is published, as it will 

be used as the basis for initiating this rule.'" We would like to strongly suggest that the HMSP 

reform should take precedence over finalization of the SFD rulemaking, a rulemaking that has 

yet to be proposed. First, the HMSP program is being used now as the SFD standard for 

covered materials. Covered carriers that do not meet the contested HMSP standards may be 

shutdown. Non-HMSP carriers do not yet face this outcome. Second, the problematic HM5P 

disqualification standards are based on inspections and 005 determinations. These same 

metrics are expected to be the basis of the standards to be proposed in the SFD rulemaking. 

Third, the HMSP regulated community is very small relative to the universe of carriers that will 

be subject to the SFD. For these reasons, we believe FMCSA should immediately act to fix the 

HMSP disqualification standards and export that refined SDF model to the larger commercial 

trucking universe under CSA. 

The agency's reluctance to immediately address the shortcomings of the HMSP is particularly 

troubling because implicit in FMCSA's plan to address by rulemaking many of the issues raised 

by industry is an acknowledgment of deficiencies with the current program. These deficiencies 

will persist over the intervening years between now and the time that they are resolved 

2 This assumes that the OOS citation was correctly issued. CSA experience shows that FMCSA's "Data Q" process is overwhelmed and state 

ability and/or willingness to expend resources on these challenges is a growing concern, 

3 Below the OOS disqualification threshold. 

4 letter to IME from FMCSA, November 14, 2011, page 1. (Emphasis added.) 
569

.through the promised HMSP rulemaking. Meanwhile., the .controversy over the ,evolving SEll 

standards adds to the uncertainty and almost certainly means that it will be years until this 

"precursor" rule is finalized. The continuing adverse impacts to the HMSP community are 

undeserved. 

4 

While Congress tried to spur agency action by requiring that the agency consult with 

stakeholders and initiate rulemakingS

, we are concerned that the agency will not move fast 

enough to prevent relatively good carriers from losing their HMSP and, as explained, being put 

out of business based on limited data anomalies. Safety is not enhanced when new and 

inexperienced carriers with no 005 history fill the void. We have asked FMCSA to immediately 

address these pressing concerns by issuing an interim final rule (IFR) to at least provide for an 

additional level of fitness review (ALFR) prior to the denial, revocation, or suspension of a safety 

permit until such time that the agency proceeds with the full rulemaking based on our petition. 

The AlFR would consider the safety management controls ofthe applicant or holder not just 

005 violations rates, and it would provide the applicant or holder an opportunity to file a 

corrective action plan to address identified concerns.6 An ALFR would not overly burden the 

agency, as it would involve an examination of less than 100 HMSP holders annually. Further, 

this approach is consistent with the direction the agency is pursuing under the CSA initiative to 

focus compliance oversight on carriers needing the most improvement compared to their 

peers. 

FMCSA told us in January that the agency was not willing to pursue a regulatory option as we have 

described because of resource limitations. Justice will not be served by inattention to these 

pressing concerns. The uncertainty of when FMCSA will be able to carry out the HMSP rulemaking 

coupled with the urgency for some action based on acknowledged program deficiencies compel us 

to ask the Subcommittee to deny funds to administer this program until FMCSA provides interim 

measures to ensure that HMSP holders are not denied permits based solely on the flawed 

disqualification standards in place now. 

Conclusion 

Congress envisioned a risk-based safety program for hazmat carriers. It gave FMCSA wide 

latitude to name the types and quantities of hazardous materials that should be covered by a 

HMSP. But, the agency has chosen to apply this authority only to the narrow list of statutorily 

mandated materials. History shows that carriers of these materials are not presenting the 

crash risk that the agency claims the HMSP will address. Neither IME nor its members object to 

pUblic policy that holds hazmat carriers to a higher safety standard, which is the premise for the 

HMSP, We do object, however, to the current standards for disqualification. They are not riskbased and deny holders meaningful due process protection, Inspection frequency and outcome 

do not seem to correlate to crashes or fatalities. Thank you for your attention to these 

concerns. 

March 25, 2013 

s "MAP-21" (P.L 112-141), Section 33014. 

6 This opportunity should not be available to applicants or holders that present an imminent hazard or evidence of a pattern willful and 

knowing non-compliance with safety regulations. 
570

Statement ohbeJnstitute of Makers.of Explosives 

Submitted by 

Cynthia Hilton 

Executive Vice President 

chilton@ime.org 

For the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies 

U.s. House of Representatives 

FY 2014 PHMSA Budget Request for the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety 

Interest ofthe IME 

The IME is the safety and security association of the commercial explosives industry. Commercial 

explosives underpin the economy. They are essential to energy production, construction, 

demolition, and the manufacture of any metal/mineral product. Explosives are transported and 

used in every state. Additionally, our products are distributed worldwide, while some explosives 

must be imported because they are not manufactured in the United States. The ability to 

transport and distribute these products and to receive precursor chemicals safely and securely is 

critical to this industry. 

Background 

The production and distribution of hazardous materials is a trillion-dollar industry that employs 

millions of Americans. These materials contribute to America's quality of life, but if handled 

improperly, adverse consequences can result. The threat of intentional misuse of these materials 

also factors into public concern. To protect against these outcomes, the Secretary of 

Transportation (Secretary) is charged under the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA) to 

"provide adequate protection" against these risks through regulation and enforcement.1 The 

Secretary has delegated the HMTA authorities to various modal administrations, with primary 

regulatory authority resting in the Pipeline & Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). 

PHMSA regulates hazmat transportation so closely that such materials may not be moved any 

distance, via any mode of transportation unless a DOT regulation, permit or approval authorizes 

the movement. Such close regulation makes efficient consideration of such authorizations critical 

to the industries and workers involved, as well as to the national defense, the security of our 

homeland, and the economy at large. 

Budget Uncertainty 

In the absence of the Administration's FY 2014 budget request, we are in uncharted territory in 

terms of our analysis of the President's budgetary priorities.2 As of the date ofthis comment, 

Congress has provided a FY 2013 appropriation to PHMSA equal to its FY 2012 rate for 

1 49 U.S.C. Chapter 51. 

2 The Budget Act requires that submission of the President's budget request by the first Monday in February. The current expectation is that 

the President's FY 2014 request will be released in April. 

1120 Nineteenth Street, NW, Suite 310, Washington, DC 20036, USA (202) 429-9280, FAX (202) 293-2420 
571

2 

operations, less the 0.612 percent increase provided by P.l. llk175...Undecthisscenario, 

PHMSA is looking at $42.3 million for its hazmat program in FY 2013. This funding rate is 

consistent with the amount authorized for FY 2013 by MAP-21.3 As we look forward to FY 

2014, MAP-21 provides a $42.8 million authorization for PHMSA's hazmat programs. However, 

the government's budget situation does not improve. The agency's FY 2013 appropriations is 

still subject to a five percent decrease under a sequestration order if the President fails to reach 

agreement with Congress on an alternative, and we understand that the cap on non-emergency 

appropriations for FY 2014 will drop to $966 billion, down from the cap of $984 billion in FY 

2013. 

While there is uncertainty about the specifics ofthe administration's hazmat priorities for FY 

2014, it should be a given that additional program growth is unlikely in the near future, and 

certainly for the coming fiscal year.4 Rather, we should be focusing the realignment of program 

priorities to ensure that the agency's core mission is sustained. With this perspective, we offer 

the following comments. 

PHMSA's FY 2013 "User Fee" Budget Request 

In these tight budgetary times, PHMSA may be tempted to repropose a "user fee" on certain 

agency activities as it did last fiscal year. We commend both the authorizing and appropriating 

committees of Congress for rejecting this request last year, and urge similar restraint, if user fees 

are again proposed. 

PHMSA's Hazmat Program Is a Success: Rulemaking and Data Collection Priorities 

As noted above, the HMTA requires that PHMSA's regulations be risk-based. The agency, in turn, 

measures the success of its hazmat safety program by the number of transportation-related deaths 

and "serious injuries" (i.e., hospitalizations) attributed to the hazardous materials. The agency 

acknowledges that these numbers "have declined an average of 4% every three years over the long 

term.',5 This decline continued last year. Only 10 deaths, all due to human error, not a failure of a 

regulatory standard, were attributed to hazardous materials. None, since the early 1970s, have 

been attributed to commercial explosives. This contrasts with thousands of deaths annually that 

result from crashes involving large trucks, for example. 

This safety outcome suggests that PHMSA needs to focus on two core missions: rulemaking, 

including the timely issuance of approvals and permits, to keep commerce moving, and data 

collection and public access to the data. For example, we were very concerned that no new 

resources above baseline were requested last year to support rulemaking activity. MAP-21 

makes clear that rulemaking, including accelerating the incorporation of special permits into the 

HMR, is a priority. PHMSA needs to maintain resources to remain active in international 

standard-setting forums to ensure that U.s. rules are consistent to keep American goods moving 

in the global marketplace. PHMSA's ability to collect incident data is critical to stakeholder's 

ability to understand and learn from incidents. Additionally, the agency's efforts to enhance the 

online availability of incident data, rulemakings, and the timeliness of processing applications for 

3 PL 112~141. 

4 PHMSA's hazmat budget has increased by about $10 million, a 30% rate of growth, in the last three fiscal years. 

s FY 2013 PHMSA Budget Justification, page 3. 
572

3 

special permits. and approvals shouJdJ>e commended and encouraged. FinaUy, we.w.elcomethe 

agency's efforts to improve communication and outreach with the regulated community. 

Budgetary Issues to Consider 

Staffing and Workload: The biggest expense in PHMSA's budget is manpower. The agency's 

output is the work product of its employees. Yet, PHMSA's budget requests have not provided 

baseline empirical workload metrics to judge agency performance or the merit of staffing requests. 

When information about program output is provided, it is prospective, not retrospective. Of 

additional concern, retirements and departures of seasoned staff have led to a loss of institutional 

knowledge. While there is a need for qualified chemists, engineers, and economists to fill this void, 

it appears that the agency is using scare resources to build a "senior advisor" cadre for agency 

administrators.6 According to the Office of Personnel Management's 2012 Federal Employee 

Viewpoint Survey Results Hazmat, PHMSA ranked near the bottom of all government agencies, and 

the lowest of all DOT's safety administrations. Such results to not bode well for attracting and 

retaining the kind of expert staff that are needed to keep up with the agency's rulemaking and 

analytical needs. 

Research & Development: Congress provides three-year monies to support a hazmat research 

and development (R&D) function within PHMSA, with a mission to study and evaluate emerging 

hazardous materials safety issues and technologies. So far, no FY 2011, 2012, or 2013 funds 

have been obligated. It does appear that PHMSA may be using some of these funds to create a 

Risk Management Framework (RMF).7 The RMF is supposed to establish incident probabilities 

through a set of fault and event trees of various hazmat shipping scenarios. The need to use 

scarce funds for such a framework is questionable given that four times as many deaths in the 

U.s. are caused by lightning strikes than hazmat incidents. There is concern that the RMF may 

lead to unnecessary over-regulation of hazmat that would threaten U.S. jobs while attaining no 

measurable safety benefit. At the same time, there is a pressing need to develop uniform 

performance standards for training hazardous materials inspectors. Congress agrees and 

directed PHMSA to produce these standards by April 2014. This initiative is deserving of 

support. 

Grants Programs (GPj: PHMSA operates three GPs - HMEP, HMIT, and SPST - funded by fees 

assessed on the hazardous materials community. We have long looked for evidence of program 

accomplishment and question the agency's claims about achievements ascribed to these 

programs. In 2005, Congress directed the agency to annually provide a detailed accounting of all 

grant expenditures.s In the intervening seven years, the agency has released only one such 

report, and that report did not provide the retrospective accounting necessary to determine if 

grant recipients were using funds appropriately.9 This year, PHMSA proposed that Congress 

eliminate this report saying that staff time used to prepare this report outweighs its benefit.1o 

6 https:lfwww.usajobs.gov/GetioblViewDetails/339410400& https:l!www,usaiobs.gov/GetlobNiewDetails!339410600 (March 15, 2013). These 

posItions are in addition to other front office staffing added during the agency's 2010 reorganization. Approximately 25% of staff are now senior 

level grades (GS-14, GS-1S, and SES); yet, few are for professional series positions. Despite the new positions, hazma! safety has not seen statistically 

slgnificant improvement. 

7 In FY 2010, $447, 000 was awarded to BayFirst, LLC for this purpose, about 30% ofthe year's R&D budget, and there is a placeholder for 

BayFirst to receive additional FY 2011 funds. 

s 49 U.5.c. 5116(k}. 

9 http://phmsa.dot.gov/statJcfi!es/PHMSA/OownloadableFiles/Files/Report to Congress HMEP Grants Program 2005 2oo6.pdf 

10 The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Modernization Act of 2010 invites Federal agencies to identify for elimination or 

consolidation. http://www.performance.gov/sites/defau!t/files/tmp/ list of Reports Required by P L%20 1l1~352.x!s. 
573

4 

The laclcotGP transparency and .accountability. prompted an· audit b" the Office.of.lnspector 

General last year. The audit found systemic mismanagement and misuse of grant funds.ll 

PHMSA has still not made its FY 2012 grant awards to applicants under the HMIT and SPST 

programs. We believe the funds for the SPST program are forfeit because this program is not 

protected by the HMTA provision that funds remain available "without further appropriation.,,12 

Whether or not PHMSA can release these FY 2012 funds, grantees now have six months or less, 

rather than a year, to spend the funds, which does not bode well for effective use of these 

monies. These programs warrant increased oversight by the Subcommittee. 

Conclusion 

The Subcommittee needs to make difficult decisions about where to save scarce federal 

resources. We recommend that the Subcommittee review new front office staff allocations, 

and ensure that the agency has a plan to replace lost expertise in its rank and file. Additional 

oversight of PHMSA's hazmat R&D and grants programs also is warranted. PHMSA should 

redirect resources to enhance its information technology and rulemaking capacities. These 

services are needed by the hazmat community, given PHMSA's close regulatory scheme, to 

enable the safe, secure and efficient movement of hazardous materials critical to the economy. 

March 25, 2013 

11 OIG, DOT, AV~2012~040, January 12, 2012. 

u 49 U.5.c. 5116(i). 
574

l , . 1'i'_J>~"'_~! 

Statement of 

Easter Seals 

to the 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Appropriations 

E_Seals 

Office of Public Affairs 

1425 K Street. N.W . 

Suite 200 

Washington, DC 20005 

202.347.3066 phone 

202.347.7385 tty 

202.737.7914 tax 

www.easterseals.com 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies 

Regarding the 

Federal Transit Administration of the Department of Transportation 

April 17,2013 

Contact: Jennifer Dexter, Ea~ter Seals 

202-347-3066 or jdexter@easterseals.com 

Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of Easter Seals about two collaborative 

partnerships we administer with the Federal Transit Administration. We appreciate tbe strong support of the 

Subcommittee over the years and look forward to continuing to work to increase the mobility of people with 

disabilities and older adults. 

About Project ACTION: 

People with disabilities rely on public transportation to travel to work and to access services, supports and 

entertainment in their communities. Recognizing the need to improve access to public transportation for people 

with disabilities, Congress in 1988 established a national technical assistance center called Project ACTION to 

partner with transportation providers, the disability community and others to promote universal access to 

transportation for people with disabilities. Congress recently reauthorized Project ACTION through the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-2l). Project ACTION is funded by the U.S. Department of 

Transportation's Federal Transit Administration (FTA) out of the standards development and technical 

assistance account. Easter Seals, Inc. won the competitive bid to manage Project ACTION for FT A. 

Collaborating witb Public Transit Operators to Increase Accessibility and Improve Services: 

Project ACTION is the preeminent resource in the country for helping increase the mobility of people with 

disabilities. The project does an exemplary job of gathering and sharing best practices; providing technical 

assistance and training; facilitating strategic partnerships and community engagement to support the 

development and coordination of transportation options; developing and disseminating information, including 

the use of web-based and social media vehicles; and administering demonstration grants. 

Project ACTION'S accomplishments include: 

Creating a strong collaborative environment between the disability and transit community; 
575

Creating hundreds of useful gy,ides, resQ!lI'ces, tools and other reSOJJrces on critical issues,atlecting mobility, 

for people with disabilities and older adults that are available to transit providers, disabilities and the general 

public for free; 

• Providing direct technical assistance to transit providers, people with disabilities and others through inperson, phone, online and other consultation; 

• Creating and delivering direct training on critical mobility issues affecting people with disabilities, transit 

providers and community planners; and, 

Working with communities to help them plan and implement strategies to increase mobility. 

Easter Seals Project ACTION Appropriations Priorities: 

Easter Seals urges Congress to support the mobility needs of people with disabilities and older adults (through 

the National Center on Senior Transportation) to address significant unmet needs, such as addressing the 

coming increase in need for accessible transportation options as baby boomers age and integrating transportation 

technology advances to increase transportation mobility and access, 

• Include report language in the fIScal year 2014 transportation appropriations bill providing no less 

than $3 million for Project ACTION and no less than $1 million for the National Center on Senior 

Transportation within the Technical Assistance and Standards Setting account at the Federal Transit 

Administration, 

About tbe National Center on Senior Transportation: 

Older adults rely on public transportation to travel to work and to access services, supports and entertainment in 

their communities, Recognizing the need to improve access to public transportation for older adults, Congress 

authorized the National Center on Senior Transportation (NCST) in 2005 as part of the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), Congress reauthorized the 

program in 2012 as part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) in the standards 

development and technical assistance account 

With funding from the U.s. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, NCST was launched 

in 2006 and has been administered by Easter Seals, Inc, in partnership with the National Association of Area 

Agencies on Aging (n4a) ever since, In April 2012, the Federal Transit Administration once again selected 

Easter Seals, Inc. and n4a to administer. From the Center's inception, a national steering committee of experts in 

senior transportation issues has advised NCST on issues in aging and transportation and ways to achieve 

NCST's goals, 

Collaborating witb Communities to Increase Independence and Improve Services: 

The National Center on Senior Transportation's mission is to increase transportation options for older adults and 

enhance their ability to live more independently within their communities throughout the United States, NCST 

achieves this mission by gathering and sharing best practices; providing technical assistance and training; 

facilitating strategic partnerships and community engagement to support the development and coordination of 

senior transportation options; developing and disseminating information; and administering demonstration 

grants. 

The Center has a strong commitment to promoting innovations at the community level and has provided funding 

and technical assistance to support a number of specific projects across the U.s, Working with individual 

communities, the NCST identifies effective and creative approaches for addressing the challenges that impact 

transportation services for older Americans, The NCST strives to bring together the aging, human service, and 

transportation providers to create solutions, Our work supports the full "family" of older adult transportation 

services, including programs using volunteers both to driver and to accompany older adults to their destinations, 
576

travel trainingan<i.orientation promoting increased use of public transit, older driver safety,. education fot 

caregivers, coordinated planning efforts and much more. 

National Center on Senior Transportation Appropriations Priorities: 

Easter Seals urges Congress to support the mobility needs of older adults and people with disabilities (through 

Easter Seals Project ACTION) to address significant unmet needs, such as addressing the coming increase in 

need for accessible transportation options as baby boomers age and integrating transportation technology 

advances to increase transportation mobility and access. 

• Include report language in the FIScal year 2014 transportation appropriations bill providing no less 

than $3 million for Project ACTION and no less than $1 million for the National Center on Senior 

Transportation within the Technical Assistance and Standards Setting account at the Federal Transit 

Administration. 
577

CSCi 

au:. 

Co-Chairs 

HOll. Eduardo BhatlaGautier 

Senate President 

Puerto Rico 

Hon. Jamie P~re!!6~ 

Borras 

Co-nee Chaw~ 

Senator Catherine E. 

Director 

Wendel! M. Hannaford 

The Honorable Tom Latham 

Chair 

April 22, 2013 

House Appropriations Subcommittee on 

Transportation, HUD and Related Agencies 

2217 Rayburn HOB 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Ed Pastor 

Ranking Member 

House Appropriations Subcommittee on 

Transportation, HUD and Related Agencies 

1111 Longworth HOB 

Washington, DC 2015 

Dear Chairman Latham and Ranking Member Pastor: 

The Council of State Governments 

Eastern Regional Conference 

100 Wall Street, 20th Floor 

New York, NY 10005 

T, (212)482-2320 

p, (212)482-2344 

WW\ ... csgeasLorg 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit outside testimony to the House Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Transportation, HUD and Related Agencies in regard to FY 2014 

Transportation Appropriations. My name is John Wisniewski. I am the Deputy Speaker of the 

New Jersey State Assembly, and I am Chair of the Council of State Governments, Eastern 

Regional Conference's Transportation Policy Committee (CSG-ERC). It is in this capacity that I 

submit this testimony. 

CSG is a national organization of the states and U.S. Territories. The member states of 

the Eastern Region of CSG stretch from Maine to Maryland and include Puerto Rico and the 

U.SVirgin Islands. ERC international associate members also include five Eastern Canadian 

Provinces. Our region is a critical economic engine for the nation. Congress's difficutt task of 

achieving long-tenm economic recovery requires funding programs with high rates of social and 

economic return. Further, I believe that adequate funding for our aging and over-burdened 

transportation infrastructure is an investment rather than an expense. 

As an organization comprised of state offiCials, we understand that budgets are 

constrained at all levels of government, and we most certainly recognize the incredible fiscal 

challenges faced by Congress. With this in mind, we would like to highlight some of the 

programs which we believe will enhance the transportation infrastructure in our region, and, 

ultimately, the nation, and which we believe will promote a safe, secure, reliable, and 

environmentally sound transportation system, while improving our economy and creating 

sustainable jobs for the region and beyond. 

(Orlnectltut. D",law.;rf'. Mclin". Ma,vland. Ma~~achll~f'th. New Brun~wl(k • New Hampsh(rE'. NE'1h Jpr~Py .'\if'w York 

Nova Scotia. OrtiH;Q. pp,.,r~vhilnlil. Ppnce fdward Is!and. Pu"rto RIco. Qupbcc • Rhode Island. U ') \,1(,,1'"1 !<,Iand~. VpC:"llO'"1\ 
578

Transportation SubCmt Testimony 

April 22, 2013 

Page Two 

CSG-ERC supports the MAP-21 authorized levels of funding for both the federal-aid 

highway program and the federal transit program. Within these two programs, we would call 

your attention to the value of: 

1. Utilizing a portion of the highway research funds for a series of mileage-based 

user fee deployment tests. While we continue to strongly support the use of the excise tax on 

motor fuels as the principle means of transportation capital and operations, we recognize the 

increasing limits on these funds. A highly structured, carefully planned, and conducted set of 

tests will add to the understanding of the possibilities for this tool. More specifically, a test of the 

mutti-jurisdictional capacity of the strategy would be most helpful; careful examination of "back 

office" business practices would also add value to knowledge and understanding of the 

administrative and organizational aspects of mileage based user fees. 

2. Emphasizing in highway, bridge and transit programs, extreme weather 

retrofitting of existing facilities. Recent extreme weather in the Northeast and around the Nation 

has painfully demonstrated how fragile our infrastructure is and how much we depend upon it. 

These concerns are equally critical in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. 

3. The President's proposed budget recommended immediate funding for border 

infrastructure. We completely agree. Canada is our largest trading partner. The efficient flow of 

people and goods across the border is vital to the social and economic health of our region. 

Travel, trade, and tourism all rely on improved infrastructure. 

Additionally: 

I support the prompt implementation of the TIFIA program as provided for in MAP-21. 

support funding in the amount of $500 million for the TIGER program. This program has funded 

an array of crrtical projects. I would urge again, this year, that the emphaSis be placed on 

awards based on a rigorous benefit-cost analysis. Further, a balance between rural, suburban 

and metro projects reflects the rich diversity of the nation and its varied needs. 

I believe that intercity passenger rail plays a critical role in the region's transportation 

network; the recent increases in federal funds for this critical mode have had a significant impact 

on the performance and reliability of the system. 

The Northeast Corridor (NEC), serving as essentially an extra two lanes on 1-95, is the 

main street of the region. Many segments of the NEC are already at capacity, especially during 

peak periods. Furthermore, NEC rail ridership is projected to increase by over 50% by 2040. 

Penn Station in New York, for example, is the busiest place in the Amtrak system and is the best 

example of the challenges faced at various locations along the NEC. At rush hour, trains move 

through the underwater tunnels between New Jersey and Manhattan on 120 second headways. 

This means that the slightest delay can trigger backups on the whole network. There is literally 

no spere infrastructure capacity, and the only way to acquire more is to add two more tracks to 

the NEC across the New Jersey Meadowlands and another set of tunnels under the Hudson 

River. 

(onnertl(t.11 • De!aw<I'f'. M~in<'. Maryland. Ma;s,!(husett~. New Brunsw'cl< • Npw Hampsrw€ • r;;",>I') • r\l€W York 

Nova Stotia • Ontar<o' Ppnn,ylvama· Prince Edw:Hd i$li'md· Puerto RICo. Quphf>c • Rhode !~!and • U::' Vlr,;;I1"' I~!and,>. V"rMont 
579

Transportation SubCmt Testimony 

April 22, 2013 

Page Three 

To address this issue of capacity into New York, Amtrak created the "Gateway Program" 

which is the single most important investment needed to unlock the capacity constraints on the 

NEC, and the many states it serves for the next generation. When implemented, the Gateway 

project will bring additional capacity to the spot where it's needed the most - the bottleneck 

between Newark and New York Penn Station. This project is truly one of national significance 

and should be treated as such. 

Today, that segment of the NEC is a double track line that serves Manhattan through a 

pair of underwater tunnels built in 1910. These are among the same tunnels that filled with over 

13 million gallons of salt water during Super Storm Sandy, shutting down service on the 

Northeast Corridor for nearly a week, and underscoring the importance of adding critical 

redundancy to this central chokepoint on the corridor. Adding two new tracks and tunnels from 

Newark to serve an expanded Penn Station, and the future Moynihan Station is essential to 

reliably support the roughly 450 trains that use the current tunnels today, and to permit future 

growth across the entire corridor. 

For the Gateway Program, we support Amtrak's funding request of $167M in FY 2014 to 

start the Portal Bridge construction, and to do related track work, and advance PEiNEPA. 

Additionally, along the NEC, we urge that such sums as may be necessary be provided 

to two other key infrastructure projects: (1) Baltimore Tunnel; (2) Susquehanna Bridges. 

I greatly respect the efforts of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to explore the 

future of the Corridor. I strongly encourage the subcommittee to provide $25 million for the 

FRA's environment and planning efforts. 

In addition, I recommend that: 

1. PRIIA Sections 301, 302, and 501 be funded at $500 million. With no earmarks, 

and an emphasis on "readiness to proceed," the money should be awarded competitively, and 

must be spent promptly. 

2. PRIIA Section 305 called for the establishment of the Next Generation Corridor 

Equipment Pool Committee (NGEC) "". to deSign, develop specifications for, and procure 

standardized next-generation corridor eqUipment." Since its inception in January of 2010, the 

NGEC has developed, adopted, and promulgated five specifications for next generation rail 

equipment, and has initiated a ground-breaking multi-state procurement for next generation bilevel passenger rail cars. A second multi-state procurement is currently underway for the 

manufacture of diesel-electric locomotives. By providing publicly available standardized 

specifications, the NGEC has created a common platform from which multiple states can 

procure rail equipment. The standardized speCifications make it possible to buy eqUipment 

faster, at a lower cost, and with lower future costs relating to maintenance, rebuilding, and the 

purchase of additional equipment. 

3. NGEC-developed specifications, available to all competitors in the rail equipment 

marketplace, will mean that equipment procured will expand employment opportunities in the 

U.S. domestic production, supply, and manufacturing industries. Therefore, I recommend that 

Connect'cut • Delawaff'. Maine· Marvland. Mas"achu5etts. New Brun':>wld • New Hamp-<;h'f<p. Npw Ji'r~e'l • 1\<,w YOfk 

Nova SCQt'<'! • Onti'no. Pennwiv<'!nlil • Princ€" Fdward !5iClr>d. Puerto Rfco. Quebec. Rhodf> I,iar>d • U ;" I,!,'lnds • VermO'1t 
580

Transportation SubCmt Testimony 

April 22, 2013 

Page Four 

this highly successful effort should receive $1 million to continue to build on the foundation it has 

established. 

4. Rail Une Relocation has assisted rural communities in meeting safety and 

operational challenges. I recommend that this program receive $25 million. 

5. The implementation of positive train control (PTC) is a daunting task for all 

concerned. I would hope that Congress could provide $100 million to assist in this vital effort. 

I also believe that a portion of rail research should be directed toward projects that assist 

the intercity passenger rail system in dealing with severe weather. 

Again, I am very much aware of Congress' larger responsibility to balance long-term 

infrastructure investment with scarce financial resources. However, I believe it is vital that we do 

not under invest in the nation's transportation system; doing so will seriously limit the nation's 

ability to compete in the global marketplace, while also having a negative impact on safety, 

security and mobility. 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide you with our comments, and for your continued 

support. 

Respectfully, 

Assemblyman John Wisniewski, New Jersey 

Deputy Speaker 

Chair, CSG-ERC Transportation Committee 

Nov;:; Scotl" • Onti1rIO • D".'nnSY!Vill1'iI • Pnnc>? Eriwan1 Island. Pu;>rto RICo. Qupbp( • Rhod;;:- l~jilnct • U S • Vermont 
581

Written Testimony of Timothy G. Kaiser 

Executive Director 

Public Housing Authorities Directors Association (PHADA) 

Submitted to the U.S. House of Representatives 

THUD Appropriations Subcommittee 

April 25, 2013 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Administration's proposed FY2014 

HUD budget. After successive years of funding prorations, offsets and sequestration, 

PHADA and its nearly 2,000 public housing leaders want to impress upon Congress the 

urgent need for: 1) reliable, adequate funding, and 2) programmatic flexibility that 

lightens the costly regulatory burden on agencies. 

In brief, the FY 2014 funding needs are as follow: 

FY2014 THUD Budget for Public Housing Programs 

Actual Need Administration's Budget 

PH Operating Fund $5.15 B $4.60 B (90% of need) 

PH Capital Fund $5.07B $2.00 B (ill of annual accrual need) 

HCV Vouchers $18.40B $17.97B 

HCV Administrative Fee $1.96 B $1.69 B (limits voucher usage) 

HOPEVI/CNI $300 million $400 million 

Background 

PHADA is a membership organization that represents the federal funding and policy 

interests of more than 1,900 housing authority executive directors in communities 

throughout the United States. Our members provide decent, safe and secure housing 

on a daily basis to approximately 1.2 million low-income households. Public housing is 

11 
582

community-owned housing and our members serve communities that range from small 

towns, rural communities, suburbs and major cities. More than 1,250 PHADA member 

agencies operate 250 or fewer public housing units. Others members manage larger 

agencies, some with units that number in the thousands and tens of thousands. 

For decades, public housing has been sustained by a three-part arrangement between 

local communities, the federal government and low-income households. Each 

contributes to the success of public housing in over 3,000 communities. First, local 

communities provide the physical housing assets, professional management and 

unpaid boards of commissioners. Second, low-income households contribute 

approximately one third of their income toward rent and utilities. This rent revenue 

collectively produces about $3 billion annually toward the operation of public housing. 

And finally, the federal government serves in two capacities - it provides subsidy and it 

monitors the use of those subsidy dollars. The HUD budget fills the funding gap 

between the tenant-generated revenues and the actual costs of operating public 

housing. In recent years Congress has failed to meet its commitment to communities 

across the country and to their low-income residents. The Public Housing Operating 

Fund has only been fully funded twice in the last decade. 

Today's funding environment 

Current funding proposals continue to challenge public housing authorities. Federal 

funding has also been flat or sharply reduced in the other programs run by housing 

authorities including the Public Housing Capital Fund, the Housing Choice Voucher 

and the HCV administrative fee. These reductions in funding have been particularly 

difficult and painful because they did not come with a corresponding reduction in 

regulatory burden that agencies carry. In spite of fewer dollars, the HUD bureaucracy 

continues to set higher performance standards (PHAS [Public Housing Assessment 

System] and SEMAP [Section Eight Management Assessment Program], specifically), 

initiate new unfunded mandates and require new reports. PHADA members have long 

thought that chronic under funding should necessarily be paired with lower demands, 

more flexibility and moratoriums on new costly requirements. 

Disparate funding levels 

21Page 
583

Additionally, community-owned housing continues to be under funded relative to 

other HUD rental assistance programs. Private owners of federally-assisted housing 

(PBRA) receive 35% more per/unit funding than units operated by public housing 

agencies. Publicly- and privately-assisted housing incur virtually identical operating 

costs, serve the same populations and both have long-term preservation needs. Private 

owners are fully funded each year while community-owned housing public housing --

receives far fewer dollars. This disparity ultimately results in fewer resources for 

residents of public housing, fewer funds to local economies and the deterioration of a 

finite community asset. 

Administration's Budget 

Public Housing Operating Fund 

The Administration's FY2014 budget underfunds the Public Housing Operating Fund 

once again at $4.6 billion or approximately a 90% proration of actual need. This funding 

level is $638 million above the dismally low funding levels of FY2013 that also included 

a 5% reduction due to sequestration. Housing agencies require $5.15 billion to 

adequately operate their housing inventories based on their funding formula eligibility. 

The FY2014 funding does not restore the funding baseline eroded by the deeply 

damaging operating reserves offset of $750 million in 2012. That misdirected effort has 

now established an inordinately low baseline for the Operating Fund that might take 

years to correct. 

Public Housing Capital Fund 

Proposed spending for the Capital Fund is just $2.0 billion - an amount that is 

approximately one half of the annually accrued capital needs of agencies. This means 

that the existing $26 billion capital fund backlog will remain and continue to grow 

unabated. The backlog puts critically-needed housing units at risk of deterioration and 

could eventually cause them to be lost from the inventory. HUD suggests that the $10 

million included in the FY2014 budget for the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) 

will help fill the Capital Fund void. There is concern that the unique RAD design and 

the severely under-resourced participating properties might not actually achieve the 

project-based assistance environment it envisions. Most public housing properties have 

significant capital needs now. Most cannot wait for a workable private-sector solution 

to be found, tested and funded. 

31Page 
584

Voucher Renewals & HCV Administrative Fee 

Voucher renewals received $17.97 billion or approximately a 98% funding proration. 

This level of funding assumes that all vouchers currently in use are funded. Full 

implementation of existing vouchers relies on an adequately funded Administrative 

Fee. The Administrative Fee pays directly for skilled professionals to perform a series of 

complex, labor-intensive tasks that are time-sensitive. 

The Administration's budget recognizes that funding shortfalls in the Administrative 

Fee were causing severe problems at agencies. The proposed funding level for fees is 

$1.69 billion or 82 cents of every dollar needed to operate the program. While this level 

of funding is a significant improvement, it signals another year of inadequate funding 

to struggling agencies. Many agencies that reduced staffing for the voucher program 

will be hesitant to rehire given the instability of funding, NRA offsets and other 

looming budget caps. 

Symptomatic of the current funding disarray is the continuing stream of agencies that 

have had to tum over their entire voucher programs because they were no longer 

financially viable to operate. Other agencies have had to decline allocations of special 

needs vouchers like V ASH. Uncertainty makes it difficult for agencies to plan, operate 

efficiently or make changes in high prescriptive HUD programs. 

Addressing Critical Cost Drivers 

PHADA strongly endorses a number of cost-saving or revenue-generating proposals 

included in the Administration's FY2012 budget proposal. Each of these proposals have 

widespread support among public housing agencies. And each would provide more 

resources to help agencies operate their programs without new or added costs to the 

federal government. 

Expansion of Moving To Work (MTW) - The Administration's budget is silent on the 

scope and details of MTW expansion but this program would allow the kind of 

flexibility afforded to private sector owners. Existing MTW agencies have successfully 

demonstrated important ways for agencies to serve more families more efficiently with 

existing resources. 

Op Fund/Cap Fund Fungibility - When one or both public housing programs are 

underfunded, as now, it is critically important that agencies can merge these funds as 

needed, to fund key functions, property needs and emergency situations. 

41Page 
585

Right-size Utility Allowance - This initiative can save significant costs by restricting 

payments of utility allowances to the size of units voucher holders qualify for rather 

than the size of the unit leased. 

Biennial inspections - Provides biennial rather than annual inspections in the voucher 

programs to create significant cost savings. The provision also allows the acceptance of 

alternative inspections from other local, state or federal agencies. 

Flat Rent Floor - Establishes a uniform flat rent floor for public housing that is 80% of 

the applicable fair market rent (FMR). This might generate additional revenue if 

households can afford and are willing to pay higher rent at that level. If higher income 

flat renters move out and are replaced by much lower income tenants it might raise 

subsidy costs. 

Redefinition of Extremely Low-Income (ELI) - Allows agencies to use of the higher of 

two ELI definitions - the HHS published poverty guidelines per family size or 30% of 

Area Median Income (AMI). 

Freezing the Utility Frozen Base - This simple initiative expands energy conservation 

on a broader scale and creates cost-savings for agencies. Savings are then available for 

other energy or capital improvements. All of these benefits are derived at no additional 

cost to the federal government 

Salary caps 

The Administration's budget elects to insert HUD into the board responsibilities at 

every housing authority in the country by establishing arbitrary and inappropriate 

salary limits based on salaries paid to federal employees. This heavy-handed meddling 

in local board actions around the hiring, firing and compensation of their executives is 

serious overreach and a solution looking for a problem. Recent and rare cases of 

excessive compensation have been resolved locally with the removal of the offenders. 

PHADA appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony to the Subcommittee on key 

issues raised by the Administration's FY2014 HUD Budget. Public housing programs 

are experiencing a crisis in both their funding and policy needs. We look to 

Appropriators to help resolve this crisis by restoring predictable, reliable and adequate 

funding for these essential public housing programs in communities nationwide. 

51Page 
586

STATEMENT 

OF THE 

AMERICAN INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIUM 

SUBMITTED TO THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COIIIII1TEE ON APPRoPRIATIONS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, HousING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 

APRIL 25, 2013 

This statement focuses on the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 

On behalf of the nation's 37 Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), which collectively are the American 

Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), thank you for the opportunity to express our views and 

recommendations regarding the Department of Housing and Urban Development Tribal Colleges and 

Universities' Program for Fiscal Year 2014 (FY 2014). 

SUMMARY OF REQUESTS 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): Beginning in Fiscal Year 2001, a TCU initiative 

had been administered by the HUD-Office of University Partnerships as part of the University Community 

Fund. This competitive grants program enabled TeUs to build, expand, renovate, and equip their facilities 

that are available to, and used by, their respective reservation communities. We strongly urge the 

Subcommittee to reject the recommendation included in the Presidenfs FY 2014 Budget Request 

and to support the goal of EO 13592 to strengthen TCUs by funding the competitive HUD-TCU 

Program, at the FY 2010 level of $5.435 million. Additionally, we request that language be included 

to pennit that a small portion of the funds appropriated may be used to provide technical 

assistance to institutions eligible to participate in this competitive grants program. 

TCU SHOESTRING BUDGETS: "DOING so MUCH WITH SO LITTLE" 

Tribal Colleges and Universities are accredited by independent, regional accreditation agencies and like all 

U.S. institutions of higher education, must periodically undergo stringent performance reviews to retain their 

accreditation status. TCUs fulfill additional roles within their respective reservation communities functioning 

as community centers, libraries, tribal archives, career and business centers, economic development 

centers, public meeting places, and child and elder care centers. Each TCU is committed to improving the 

lives of its students through higher education and to moving American Indians toward self-sufficiency. 

TCUs have advanced AllAN higher education significanUy since we first began four decades ago, but many 

challenges remain. Tribal Colleges and Universities are perennially underfunded, and remain some of the 

most poorly funded institutions of higher education in the country. 

The tribal governments that have chartered TCUs are not among the handful of wealthy gaming tribes 

located near major urban areas and regularly highlighted in the mainstream media. Rather, they are some 

of the poorest governments in the country and Tribal Colleges and Universities are home to some of the 

most disadvantaged counties in America. In fact, seven of the nation's 10 poorest counties are home to a 

TCU. The U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey specifies the annual per capita income of 

the U.S. population as $27,100. However, the annual per capita income of AI/ANs is just $13,300, about 

half that of the general population. 

121 ORONOCO STREET - ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314 - 703-838-0400 - FACSIMILE: 703-838-0388 
587

AIHEClfribal College and Universities - FY 2014 Transportation! HUD Appropriations Statement 

The federal govemment, despite its direct trust responsibility and treaty obligations, has never fully funded 

the TCUs institutional operating budgets, authorized under the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities 

Assistance Act of 1978. Currently, the Administration requests and Congress appropriates over $200 

million annually, towards the institutional operations of Howard University (exclusive of its medical school), 

the only other MSI that receives institutional operations funding from the federal government. Howard 

University's current federal operating support exceeds $19,OOO/student. In contrast, most TCUs are 

receiving $5,665 per Indian Student IISC) under the Tribal College Act, about 70 percent of the authorized 

level. TCUs have proven that they need and deserve an investment equal to - at the very least - the 

congressionally authorized level of $8,000llndian student, which is only 42 percent of the federal amount 

now appropriated for operating Howard University. It is important to note that although about 17 percent of 

the TCUs collective enrollments are non-Indian students living in the local community, TCUs only receive 

federal funding for operations based on Indian students, which are defined as members of a federally 

recognized tribe or a biological child of a tribal member. Please understand that we are by no means 

suggesting that Howard University does not need or deserve the funding it receives, only that the TCUs 

also need and deserve adequate institutional operations funding; however, their operating budgets remain 

grossly underfunded, 

While TCUs do seek funding from their respective state legislatures for their students that are non-Indian 

state-residents (sometimes referred to as "non-beneficiary' students) successes have been at best 

inconsistent. TCUs are accredited by the same regional agencies that accredit mainstream institutions, yet 

they have to continually advocate for basic operating support for their non-Indian state students within their 

respective state legislatures. If these non-beneficiary students attended any other public institution in the 

state, the state would provide that institution with ongoing funding toward its day-to-day operations. Given 

their locations, often hundreds of miles from another postsecondary institution, TCUs remain open to all 

students, Indian and non-Indian, believing that education in general, and postsecondary education in 

particular is the silver bullet to a better economic future for their regions. 

TCUs effectively blend traditional teachings with conventional postsecondary curricula. They have 

developed innovative ways to address the needs of tribal populations and are overcoming long-standing 

barriers to success in higher education for American Indians. Since the first TCU was established on the 

Navajo Nation in 1968, these vital institutions have come to represent the most Significant development in 

the history of American Indian higher education, providing access to, and promoting achievement among, 

students who might otherwise never have known postsecondary education success. 

Inadequate funding has left many TCUs with no choice but to continue to operate under severely distressed 

conditions. The need for HUD-TCUP funding remains urgent for construction, renovation, improvement, 

and maintenance of key TCU facilities, such as basic and advanced science laboratories, computer labs, 

and increasingly important student housing, day care centers, and community services facilities. Although 

the situation has greatly improved at many TCUs in the past several years, some TCUs still operate -- at 

least partially -- in donated and temporary buildings. Few have dormitories and even fewer have student 

health centers. At Sitting Bull College in Fort Yates, ND competitively awarded HUD grant funds have been 

leveraged to expand the college's usable space from 12,000 square feet (sf) to 100,000 sf over 10 years. 

Additionally, HUD grant dollars have been used to address three leaking roofs that created a mold problem 

in the area referred to at the college as the "Hall of Buckets." HUD grant funds were also used to complete 

a renovation on its learning center, correcting major deficiencies, including recurring sewer and water 

problems, handicap accessibility issues, lack of effective safety/security measures (surveillance and alarm 

systems), and outdated washroom facilities. 

2 
588

AIHECffribal College and Universities - FY 2014 Transporlation! HUD Appropriations Statement 

JUSTIFICATIONS 

Department of Housing and Urban Development: Executive Order 13592 addressing American Indian 

education and strengthening of Tribal Colleges and Universities holds federal agencies accountable to 

develop plans for integrating TCUs into their various programs. TCUs work with tribes and tribal 

communities to address all aspects of reservation life, including the continuum of education, housing, 

economic development, health promotion, law enforcement training, and crime prevention. Likewise, 

federal agencies need to work with TCUs. To achieve results, Congress needs to hold the Administration 

accountable for the strengthening of the TCUs, including their physical plants and ensuring that they are 

routinely included as full partners in all existing and potential federal higher education programs. The HUDTCU competitive grants program, administered by the Office of University Partnerships, is an excellent 

place to start. This competitive grants program has enabled TCUs to expand their roles and efficacy in 

addressing development and revitalization needs within their respective communities. No academic or 

student support projects have been funded through this program; rather, funding was available only for 

community-based outreach and service programs and community facilities at TCUs. Through this program, 

some TCUs have been able to build or enhance child care centers, including Head Start facilities, and 

social services offices; help revitalize tribal housing; establish and expand small business development; 

and enhance vitally-needed community library services. Unfortunately, not all of the TCUs were able to 

benefit from this small but very important program. The program staff at the Department has no budget to 

provide technical assistance with regard to this program. If a small portion of the appropriated funds were to 

be available for program staff to conduct workshops and site visits, more of the TCUs and their respective 

communities could benefit from this vital opportunity. We strongly urge the Subcommittee to support 

the HUD-rCU competitive grants program at $5,435,000, and to include language that will allow a 

small portion of these funds to be used to provide technical assistance to rcus, to help ensure that 

much-needed community services and programs are expanded and continued in the communities 

served by the nation's rcus. 

PRESIDENT'S FY 2014 BUDGET 

The President's FY 2014 Budget Request does not provide funding for the University Community Fund, 

which housed the TCU program and other Minority-Serving Institutions programs. We respectfully request 

that the Subcommittee reject the Administration's recommendation and continue to recognize the abundant 

need for facilities construction and improvement funds for TCUs and appropriate funding for the Tribal 

Colleges and Universities Program, and the other MSI-HUD programs, namely: Historically Black Colleges 

and Universities; Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities; and Alaska Native and Native 

Hawaiian Serving Institutions Assisting Communities, to be allocated competitively within their individual 

programs. 

CONCLUSION 

We respectfully request that beginning in FY 2014, Congress illustrate its support for the goals of the new 

executive order aimed at strengthening TCUs by restoring the HUD-TCU competitive grants program and 

provide for technical assistance to help these dynamic institutions improve and expand their facilities to 

better serve their students and communities. Thank you for your continued support of the nation's TCUs 

and for your consideration of our Fiscal Year 2014 HUD appropriations requests. 

3 
589

Statement ofthe Coalition oCNortheastern Governors 

to the United States House oC Representatives 

Committee on Appropriations 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies 

Regarding FY2014 Appropriations Cor Transportation and Community Development 

Programs 

The Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG) is pleased to share with the Subcommittee 

on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies this testimony for the 

record on FY2014 appropriations for surface transportation, rail, and community development 

programs. The CONEG governors deeply appreciate the Subcommittee's longstanding support 

of funding for these programs. Federal support is vital to maintaining the national transportation 

system, enhancing its capacity to meet enormous and diverse needs, and contributing to a 

balanced, integrated national transportation system that supports the nation's current and future 

economic growth. As the nation's population grows and the economy recovers, these needs 

confront all of us federal, state and local governments and the private sector. 

The governors recognize that the Subcommittee, in crafting the FY2014 appropriations measure, 

faces a very difficult set of choices in an environment of severe fiscal constraints. Funding the 

nation's surface transportation programs in FY2013 at the funding levels authorized in MAP-21 

(p.L. 112-141) was a significant accomplishment. They thank the Subcommittee for its support 

and urge you to continue this strong federal/state partnership so vital for a national, integrated, 

multi-modal transportation system. This system underpins the competitiveness of the nation's 

economy; broadens employment opportunities; and contributes to the efficient, safe, 

environmentally-sound, and energy efficient movement of people and goods. 

Surface Transportation 

The CONEG governors urge the Subcommittee to fund the highway obligation ceiling at the 

authorized levels, adequately fund safety and innovative financing programs, and maintain at 

least the FY2013 levels for public transit programs. These levels of federal investment are the 

minimum needed to slow the decline in infrastructure conditions and maintain the safety of the 

nation's highways, bridges, and transit systems. 

Continued and substantial federal investment in these infrastructure improvements - in urban, 

suburban, exurban, and rural areas - is necessary to safely and efficiently move people and 

products and to support the substantial growth in freight movement projected in the coming 

decades. The federal government has invested significant resources in the nation's transportation 

systems, and it has a continuing responsibility to maintain and enhance the capacity of the 

nation's transportation infrastructure to keep America competitive in a global economy. 

Specifically, the CONEG governors urge the Subcommittee to: 

• Fund the highway obligation ceiling at the authorized levels; 

• Fund public transit programs at no less than the authorized levels, with full funding for the 

current transit formula grants and capital investment grants, preserving the historic funding 

balance between these programs; 

CONEG Statement - FY2014 THUD 4124113 
590

• Ensure that federal transit funds are released to states and designated recipients in a timely 

marmer; and 

• Expand the use of innovative financing and public-private partnerships to supplement direct 

federal funding, including federal loan guarantees and credit assistance, such as the 

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program (TIFIA). 

Rail 

The governors deeply appreciate the Subcommittee's continued support for Amtrak and the 

funding in prior years for intercity passenger rail capital assistance. Recognizing that Congress 

will undertake a new authorization of the rail program to follow PRIIA, the Passenger Rail 

Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-432), they urge the Subcommittee to provide 

FY2014 funding for intercity passenger rail capital assistance. Significant funding for intercity 

passenger rail, in addition to the Amtrak funding, will allow efficient intercity passenger rail 

corridors to be developed as part of a national, multi-modal transportation system. In the 

Northeast, continued, adequate federal investment is critical to bring the current system to a state 

of good repair; help expand its capacity to meet the growing ridership; provide improved service 

to communities; attract state, local and private sector investments in the intercity passenger rail 

system; and develop a coordinated, comprehensive vision and plan for future services. These 

investments are essential for the accessible, reliable, frequent and on-time service that attracts 

and retains ridership and grows revenues. 

The Northeast has one of the oldest and most extensive multi-modal transportation systems in the 

world. This system faces major congestion and capacity constraints which, if not addressed, 

have the potential to curtail future commerce and mobility in a region that is densely populated 

and serves as an economic engine for the nation. To begin to address these capacity constraints, 

the Northeast states have already invested significantly in the passenger rail corridors of the 

region - the Northeast Corridor (NEC), the Empire Corridor, the Northern New England 

Corridor, and the Keystone Corridor. They have leveraged federal funds appropriated for 

intercity passenger rail projects eligible under the framework created by PRIIA. The intense 

efforts of the states, Amtrak and freight railroads in recent years are now showing positive results 

in the nation's busiest rail corridor. However, continued significant investments in this corridor 

network are needed to meet the growing intercity passenger travel market. The joint planning 

and funding initiatives over the past years are part of an on-going coordinated effort to improve 

service by reducing travel times, increasing speed, increasing service reliability and on-time 

performance, and eliminating choke points; while improving infrastructure through station 

upgrades, replacing aging bridges and electrical systems, installing track and ties, replacing 

catenary wires, and purchasing new locomotives. Among the active collaborative projects that 

are employing thousands of workers using American-made supplies are the following: 

• Maine's Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority (NNEPRA) is managing a project 

to add double track and replace rail in Massachusetts on the portion of the Downeaster line 

owned by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA). These improvements 

will enhance Downeaster reliability/on-time performance and set the stage for more 

Downeaster frequencies. NNEPRA received a Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) grant 

and the MBT A provided a match. 

CONEG Statement - FY2014 THUD 2 4124113 
591

• The Delaware Department of Transportation, the University of Delaware, and the City of 

Newark are designing and building a regional transportation center, on former industrial 

property acquired by the University of Delaware, to serve Amtrak, Southeastern 

Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, and Delaware public transit. Preliminary 

engineering is anticipated for the summer of 20 13. 

• In Massachusetts, work currently underway to re-route Amtrak's Vermonter will expand 

service to new communities, connecting Vermont, western Massachusetts and central 

Connecticut to the Northeast Corridor and Washington D.C. Upgrades to this 

"Massachusetts Knowledge Corridor" include installing 50 miles of new rail (made in 

Steelton, Pennsylvania) and replacing approximately 75,000 ties. This project builds upon 

work completed in Vermont that has reduced travel time by almost one-half hour. 

Amtrak: The Amtrak FY20 14 Budget Request contains specific funding levels provided for 

operations, capital and debt service. These funding levels will enable Amtrak to continue a 

balanced program of adequate, sustained capital investment in infrastructure and fleet 

modernization programs that are vital for an efficient intercity passenger rail system that can 

meet the rising demand for reliable, safe, quality services. 

The Amtrak capital request encompasses investments urgently needed to maintain the Northeast 

Corridor and other Amtrak-owned or maintained infrastructure and equipment; advance the 

Gateway Program to expand track, tunnel and station capacity between Newark, N.J., and New 

York Penn Station; acquire new equipment; and improve accessibility for passengers with 

disabilities. 

The governors also strongly urge the Subcommittee to provide Amtrak the requested levels of 

funding that will allow improved intercity service on the NEC - the backbone of a passenger rail 

network that connects the entire Northeast and extends rail service to communities in the South, 

West, and Canada. These projects are initial steps required to address the backlog of deferred 

investments, and to make investments in near-term improvements in track, bridges, tunnels and 

equipment that will increase the capacity of the NEC to offer more reliable and frequent intercity 

service that can deliver more riders to their destination in less travel time. Improvements on the 

NEC can also help address the congested highway corridors and crowded Northeast airports that 

are a major source of travel delays nationwide. 

Intercity Passenger Rail Corridors: To advance the initial investments made by the federal 

govemment and the states, the governors urge the Subcommittee in FY20 14 to fund a 

competitive Intercity Passenger Rail Corridor Capital Assistance Program, and to provide 

provisions that fund the planning activities for the development of passenger rail corridors, 

including multi-state corridors. The multi-state planning funds are the source of the monies that 

support the continuation of the work being led by the FRA, working cooperatively with the 

Northeast states, to develop an updated service development plan and environmental analysis 

that reflect the current and projected demand for passenger rail service on the NEC. A funding 

level of $25 million is needed in FY2014 for the completion of these analyses which are required 

for any future major improvements for higher-speed intercity passenger rail service on the NEC. 

CONEG Statement - FY20! 4 THUD 3 4124113 
592

Since these corridors serve diverse travel markets, the governors urge that these grant funds be 

available to states to advance plans for reliable, travel-time competitive service, regardless of 

maximum speed requirements. In light of the stringent FRA requirements for intercity passenger 

rail grants, they request the Subcommittee waive the current statutory requirement that projects 

be part of an approved state rail plan, since this requirement might curtail thoughtful and welladvanced efforts already underway by the states. 

Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission: The governors thank 

the Subcommittee for providing funding for the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations 

Advisory Commission (Commission). Consistent with its responsibilities defmed under PRlIA, 

the Commission is working actively to facilitate mutual cooperation and planning among the 

states, Amtrak, freight railroads, and the FRA for intercity, commuter and freight use of the 

Corridor - and to also maximize the economic growth and the energy and environmental benefits 

of the larger regional NEC Network. 

The Commission has extensive responsibilities to set corridor-wide policy goals and 

recommendations that encompass passenger rail mobility, intermodal connections to highways 

and airports, reduced energy consumption, air quality improvements, and local and regional 

economic development of the entire Northeast region. It is also tasked with developing a 

standardized formula to determine and allocate the costs, revenues and contributions among 

NEC commuter railroads and Amtrak which use each other's facilities and services. The 

Commission's work will also guide the vision and service development plans that are a prerequisite to fund projects that can improve the capacity of the NEC. To conduct the assessments 

required by Congress in a timely manner, the Commission needs resources, data and expert 

analysis that exceed that which is currently available through the staff of the states, Amtrak and 

FRA. Continued funding in FY2014 will ensure the Commission's ability to secure all essential 

resources for conducting these assessments. 

Other Programs: A number of other national rail and intermodal programs are important 

components of the evolving federal-state-private sector partnerships to enhance passenger and 

freight rail across the country. 

The Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program (RRlF) can be an important 

tool for railroads (particularly regional and short-line railroads) and public agencies to access the 

financing needed for critical infrastructure and intermodal projects. The governors also 

encourage the Subcommittee to provide funding for the Rail Line Relocation program, the Next 

Generation Corridor Train Equipment Pool, and critical rail safety programs. 

The governors support the continuation of the Transportation Investment Generating Economic 

Recovery, or TIGER Discretionary Grant program, at $500 million to encourage investment in 

multi-modal, multi-jurisdictional or other road, rail, transit and port projects that help achieve 

critical national objectives. 

Adequate funding is needed for the Surface Transportation Board to carry out its expanded 

responsibilities for intercity passenger rail corridor service, including its specific responsibilities 

CONEG Statement - FY2014 THUD 4 4124113 
593

under PRlIAregarding equitable cost-sharing fonnulas among states, Amtrak and commuter 

railroads. 

Community Development Bloek Grant 

The CONEG governors urge the Subcommittee to provide $3.3 billion in fonnula fimding for the 

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. This program, which enables states to 

invest in improved local infrastructure, rehabilitated affordable housing, and local economic 

development and jobs, has a proven track record of contributing to neighborhood and community 

redevelopment and improvement nationwide. Every dollar invested in CDBG leverages an 

additional $3.55 in non-CDBG fimding. 

Conclusion 

In conclusion, the CONEG governors urge the Subcommittee to: 

• Fund the highway obligation ceiling at the authorized levels; 

• Expand the TIFlA program; 

• Fund federal public transit programs at the authorized levels, with full fimding for the transit 

fonnula grants and capital investment grant programs, and preserving the historic fimding 

balance between these programs; 

• Fund Amtrak at levels that will support sound operations and a balanced capital investment 

program, including the NEC capacity improvements; 

• Maintain provisions to fimd the Northeast Corridor Infrastructure and Operations Advisory 

Commission; 

• Provide fimding for the Intercity Passenger Rail Service Corridor Assistance Program for 

corridor planning and capital investment, including provisions for multi-state corridor 

planning; 

• Provide fimding for such national rail programs as the Next Generation Corridor Train 

Equipment Pool, the Rail Line Relocation program and the RRlF program; 

• Provide $500 million for the TIGER program; 

• Provide adequate fimding for the Surface Transportation Board; and 

• Provide fonnula fimding for the Community Development Block Grant at the $3.3 billion 

level. 

The CONEG governors thank the entire Subcommittee for the opportunity to share these 

priorities and appreciate your consideration of these requests. 

CONEG Statement - FY2014 THUD 5 4124113 
594

NAHMA 

NATIONAL AffORDABLE HOUSING MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION 

Outside Witness Testimony of Kris Cook, CAE 

400 North Columbus Street 

Suite 203 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

(703) 683-8630 

(703) 683-8634 FAX 

www.nahma.org 

Executive Director, National Affordable Housing Management Association 

April 24, 2013 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related 

Agencies 

FY 2014 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Budget 

Thank you, Chairman Latham and Ranking Member Pastor for the opportunity to submit this 

testimony on behalf of the National Affordable Housing Management Association (NAHMA). 

My testimony concems the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

budget request for FY 2014. I will primarily focus on the importance of providing full-funding 

at the level of $11.5 billion for the 12-month contract terms under project-based Section 8. I 

will also request the Subcommittee's support for other key HUD rental assistance programs. 

Specifically, I will urge the Subcommittee to support $20 billion for the Housing Choice 

Voucher program plus any additional funds necessary to ensure there are no program or 

contract shortfalls due to the FY 13 sequestration. For the programs Section 202 Housing 

for the Elderly and Section 811 Housing for the Disabled, I will request at least $400 million 

and $126 million respectively, plus any additional funds need to prevent shortfalls for project 

rental assistance contracts and seNice coordinator contracts. I will urge the Subcommittee 

to provide $30 billion in commitment authoritY for the General and Special Risk Insurance 

Fund. For HOME, I will request $1.6 billion. The Community Development Block Grant 

(CDBG) should receive $3.3 billion. Finally, I will express NAHMA's strong support for 

certain rental assistance reforms which will create program savings and efficiencies. These 

reforms will help stretch limited funds and minimize the risk of harsh cuts in assistance to 

needy families. 

About NAHMA 

NAHMA members manage and provide quality affordable housing to more than two million 

Americans with very low to moderate incomes. Presidents and executives of property 

management companies, owners of affordable rental housing, public agencies and national 

organizations involved in affordable housing, and providers of supplies and services to the 

affordable housing industry make up the membership of NAHMA. In addition, NAHMA 

serves as the national voice in Washington for 19 regional, state and local affordable 

housing management associations (AHMAs) nationwide. 
595

Project-Based Section 8 

In the project-based Section 8 program (PBS8), HUD contracts with private apartment 

owners to pay the difference between the rent for the unit and 30 percent of a qualified 

tenant's income. The rental subsidy in the PBS8 program is tied to the property. 

This program provides housing to 1.2 million low-income households, over half of which are 

elder1y or disabled. According to HUD, the program supports 100,000 jobs, and PBS8 

properties generate $460 million in tax receipts to local and state governments. 

It is essential for Congress to provide HUD with the necessary appropriations to make full 

and timely contract payments to property owners. IMlen HUD does not have sufficient 

appropriations to obligate funding for the entire 12-month contract terms at the time of the 

renewals, it "short-funds" the contracts. Prior to 2009, HUD "short-funded" its PBS8 

contracts with owners so that payments would only be promised from the date of renewal 

through September 30 (the end of the federal fiscal year). In other words, on a 12-month 

contract with a January 1 renewal date, HUD would only obligate funding through 

September 30. Funding for the remaining three months on the contract would have to be reprocessed in the new fiscal year. This practice was disruptive to properties' operations, 

wasted HUD's staff time, and undermined public confidence in the project-based Section 8 

program. Unfortunately, HUD will resume this practice, at least temporarily, to manage the 

cuts required under sequestration. 

The President's budget proposal for fiscal year (FY) 2014 requests approximately $10.3 

billion for the Project-Based Section 8 program. Unfortunately, the FY 2014 request is 

impacted by the $1.2 billion shortfall in the program due to sequester funding levels in the 

FY 2013 Continuing Resolution. As a result, HUD will not be able to fund contracts for the 

full 12-month terms during the remainder of FY2013 and into FY 2014. If sequestration were 

repealed, the budget request would be sufficient to fully-fund contract renewals; however, a 

repeal of sequestration seems increasingly unlikely. Therefore, an estimated $11.5 billion 

dollars will be necessary to fully fund the FY 14 contract renewals and to close the shortfall 

caused in the FY 2013 appropriations. 

In FY 2014, NAHMA strongly urges the Subcommittee to provide $11.5 billion for full funding 

of the 12-month contract terms of Project-Based Section 8 contracts. This level of funding is 

necessary because: 

• The federal government must honor its contracts with property owners. 

• Short-funding jeopardizes the efficient management, financial solvency, and physical 

health of PBS8 properties. 

• FHA-insured properties could default without the contract funds to pay their mortgages. 

• Properties accumulate numerous late fees to lenders and service providers as a result of 

having insufficient funds to make mortgage and utility bill payments. 

2 
596

• Property staff suffer lay-offs as a result of insufficient contract funding. 

• Rehabilitation and renovation plans are put on hold when funding is erratic. 

• Short-funding is a budget gimmick that does NOT save the govemment money. 

• Appropriations for 11,000 contracts that will be underfunded in FY 13 due to sequestration 

will have to be provided in FY 14-in addition to the funds necessary for FY 14 contract 

renewals. 

• Short-funding wastes administrative time at HUD because staff must process funding 

multiple times for the same property over the course of the year. 

• Short-funding jeopardizes investor and owner confidence in the PBS8 program. 

Other Critical HUD Multifamily HOUSing Programs 

NAHMA strongly urges the Subcommittee to prevent draconian cuts to affordable multifamily 

housing programs administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD). In FY 2014, NAHMA strongly urges that the Subcommittee provide the necessary 

appropriations to ensure that all of HUD's rental assistance programs receive full-funding for 

their 12-month contact tenns in FY 14, and that no shortfalls result from the sequester 

funding levels in FY 2013 Continuing Resolution. 

In addition to project-based Section 8, NAHMA is concemed about funding levels for the 

following programs: 

• NAHMA urges the Subcommittee to provide the $20 billion requested by HUD for the 

Housing Choice Voucher (HCV, or tenant-based Section 8) program plus any additional 

funding necessary to ensure there are no program or contract shortfalls due to the FY 13 

sequestration. 

• For Section 202 Housing for the Elderly, NAHMA requests at least $400 million plus any 

additional funding necessary to ensure there are no contract shortfalls due to the FY 13 

sequestration. HUD's request for this program also includes $310 million for the renewal 

and amendments of Project Rental Assistance Contracts (PRACs) and $70 million for the 

Service Coordinator program. NAHMA also requests at least $20 million for new 

construction of apartments to serve the elderly. 

• For Section 811 Housing for the Disabled, NAHMA requests at least $126 million plus any 

additional funding necessary to ensure there are no contract shortfalls due to the FY 13 

sequestration. HUD's request includes $106 million for Section 811 PRACs. NAHMA also 

requests at least $20 million for new construction of apartments to serve disabled persons. 

3 
597

• The General and Special Risk Insurance Fund programs provide mortgage insurance for 

financing the development or rehabilitation of multifamily housing, nursing homes and 

hospitals. NAHMA supports HUD's request of $30 billion in commitment authority. 

• The HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) program is the largest federal block grant to 

state and local govemments designed exclusively to produce affordable housing for lowincome families. NAHMA requests funding at the FY 11 level of $1.6 billion. 

• The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) offers block grants to local 

communities for community development purposes, including the development of 

affordable housing. NAHMA urges the Subcommittee to provide $3.3 billion for the CDBG. 

o Both HOME and CDBG provide essential gap financing for development of Low Income 

Housing Tax Credit (LlHTC) properties. 

Passing Comprehensive, Pragmatic Rental Assistance Refonn Legislation 

NAHMA joins a broad coalition of private housing providers, public housing agencies, lowincome housing advocates and other stakeholders in urging Congress to pass 

comprehensive rental assistance and Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) reform 

legislation in 2013. The most recent proposal was the Affordable Housing and SelfSufficiency Improvement Act (AHSSIA) developed by the House Financial Services 

Committee in 2012. Savings and efficiencies achieved through these reforms would help 

stretch limited funds and minimize the risk of harsh cuts in assistance to needy families. If 

these reforms are enacted, it is essential to ensure the savings achieved are used to 

continue funding affordable multifamily housing programs. NAHMA strongly supports 

measures which would: 

• Streamline inspections of HCV housing units by permitting owners to make minor repairs 

within 30 days and permitting PHAs to allow occupancy prior to the inspection in buildings 

which passed an altemative inspection (HOME, LlHTC or other inspections with equally 

stringent standards) within the last 12 months. These changes will help voucher-holders in 

tight rental markets with low vacancy. 

• Expand income targeting for the public housing, HCV and project-based Section 8 

programs. These changes will help house more working poor families, particularly in rural 

areas. 

• Simplify the rules for determining a family's rent and income, for example, by allowing 

families on fIXed incomes to recertify their incomes once every three years instead of 

annually. This will reduce the administrative burdens on tenants, property owners, and 

management agents. 

• Stabilize HCV funding by basing it on the previous year's leasing and cost data. 

4 
598

• Encourage self-sufficiency for residents. 

• Streamline the use of HCVs with other federal housing programs, like the LlHTC, by 

extending the permitted contract period for project-based vouchers from 15 to 20 years. 

• Authorize HUD's Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program. RAD is intended to 

test strategies to leverage private funds for public housing capital needs, preserve units 

assisted through the Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation program and allow properties 

assisted under the Rental Assistance Payment (RAP) and Rent Supplement (Rent Supp) 

programs to convert to project-based section 8 contracts. 

• Authorize HUD to provide Limited English Proficiency (LEP) technical assistance to 

recipients of federal funds. This program would create a stakeholder working group to 

identify vital documents for translations, require HUD to translate identified documents 

within six months and create a HUD-administered 1-800 hotline to assist with oral 

interpretation needs. This program is necessary because it will offer a higher-level of 

quality control over the services provided to LEP persons and ensure meaningful 

access to HUD's housing programs for persons with LEP. It will also relieve housing 

operators of an unfunded obligation to provide language services that could divert 

funds from repairs and maintenance of the properties. 

Conclusion 

Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this testimony. I look forward to working with 

the Subcommittee to ensure essential HUD rental assistance programs are fully funded and 

properly administered. 

5 
599

Luigi Vernola 

Mayor 

City of Norwalk, California 

Written Testimony to the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban 

Development, and related Agencies Concerning FY2014 T -HUD Budget 

The following testimony is submitted in support of the following HUD program funding 

levels: 

• Housing Choice Voucher Program Renewal: $18.540 billion 

• HCV Administrative Fees: $1.994 billion 

• Family Self Sufficiency Coordinators: $87 million 

• Community Development Block Grant: $3.3 billion 

• HOME Investment Partnership Program: $1.6 billion 

The City of Norwalk is located in Southern California and has a population of 

approximately 106,000 residents. The City operates the Community Development Block 

Grant (CDBG) program and HOME program. The City of Norwalk Housing Authority 

(NHA) operates a fully leased Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program with 705 

baseline vouchers and a Section 8 Family Self Sufficiency program. NHA has been 

serving the City of Norwalk since its establishment in 1976. NHA's mission is to provide 

decent, safe and affordable housing to residents while providing a high level of 

customer service, program integrity, and professionalism. NHA has been a high 

performing housing authority for the last six years. 

HCV Renewal Funding 

Renewal funding for the HCV program has become extremely tenuous under 

sequestration. Over the years, NHA has maximized use of HUD funds, while also 

maintaining a minimal, yet critical, program reserve. Years of strategic planning and 

administrative efficiency will allow NHA and its participants to ride out sequestration in 

2013. However, NHA will have exhausted its reserve by the end of the calendar year. If 

sequestration is allowed to roll out over ten years, NHA will need to come to terms with 

its inevitable demise. 

The administration proposes offsetting agency reserves in the 2014 budget in order to 

provide shortfall funding to agencies with no reserves. This plan is flawed because the 

number of agencies with no reserves will have increased significantly by the end of 

2013 and agencies with reserves will have much lower balances. The need for shortfall 

funding will exceed the amount of reserves available. Any funding proposal should not 

rely upon an off-set of remaining reserves to fully fund the program. 

Because NHA's resources will be exhausted in 2013, hard decisions and cuts will be 

needed under a 2014 sequester. If funding levels are insufficient in 2014, NHA already 

has plans to cut subsidy levels for most of the assisted households and allow program 

participation to decline through attrition. However, these measures will not be enough if 

sequestration continues into 2015. By 2015, we will have permanently lost at least 6% 
600

of our program and the downward spiral of funding cuts and program cuts will 

commence in earnest. By the end of the 10 year sequester, NHA will have only 64% of 

its program remaining. This projection is based on 100% renewal funding with the 

sequestration reduction applied each year. If funding is not renewed at 100%, the 

program losses will be much greater and more rapid. 

Under a continuing sequester, program participants will have to carry a higher rent 

burden. Since the majority of our participants are senior citizens and disabled 

households on fixed incomes, most participants will have no other choice but cut back 

on food and medicine in order to pay their rent. 

The Administration's proposal brings some cost saving measures to the program 

through increased minimum rent and reduction in medical allowances, but many of the 

measures will negatively impact our senior citizens and disabled households, who may 

also be expected to carry a higher rent burden next year. The Administration's proposed 

program changes coupled with inadequate funding will spell double trouble for our most 

vulnerable residents. 

The 2013 appropriations have already impacted our waiting list. NHA has over 5,000 

applicants on its HCV waiting list, who have already been waiting six years for 

assistance. The waiting time has been extended another 2-1/2 years on average just 

from the 2013 cuts. If cuts continue, the waiting period for applicants will be extended 

indefinitely. 

Hev Administrative Fee 

In 2013, HUD projects that housing authorities will have their administrative fees 

prorated to 69% of eligibility. This proration amount is inadequate to fund the positions 

necessary to comply with the multitude of complex program regulations. Some 

members of Congress may be thinking that most housing authorities have been able to 

survive a steady decline in administrative fees in recent years and can keep surviving 

with even less. To get by with fewer staff and resources while having to assist the same 

number of households, many agencies have had to pick and choose which regulations 

they can afford to comply with and which ones they cannot. The lack of sufficient 

funding is eroding program integrity. HUD does not audit every housing authority every 

year. If administrative fee cuts continue, eventually these program compliance issues 

will surface in a costly and embarrassing way. HUD will have more audit findings and 

more troubled agencies. More agencies will also decide that they cannot effectively 

carry out their missions and return their programs to HUD. 

By year five of the sequester, NHA's administrative fees are projected to have declined 

to an unsustainable level, and the City may be tasked with returning the program to 

HUD. This does not mean that NHA can sustain 5 more years of administrative fee cuts. 

During the next five years, staff will be laid off, service levels will decline, and 

regulations will fall to the wayside until the few remaining staff will not be able to 

effectively administer the program any longer. 
601

With a very lean workforce already in place, NHA has made cuts in the last two years to 

save money. Last year, we eliminated one position and consolidated the FSS program 

with the HCV program. This year, NHA moved into City Hall to save money on rent, and 

some staff hours were allocated to other programs and funding sources. The City is 

supportive and has provided NHA with these cost cutting opportunities, but the City 

cannot subsidize the day-ta-day program administration costs. 

The grim reality is that the HCV program has been losing dedicated staff hours for 

years. The industry standard for sufficient program staffing levels has 

traditionally been 1 employee for every 100 vouchers. In our experience, this 

formula is ideal for effective operations. However, due to declining administrative fees 

NHA will soon have 5.75 employees for 765 vouchers (705 base vouchers and 60 

portables). Under current staffing levels, participants and applicants have less contact 

with staff and processing times have increased. 

The clear outcome of administrative fee reductions is declining program integrity. Staff 

has fewer hours to spend on investigating fraud, handling clients with special needs, 

processing interim rent adjustments, and following up on inspection issues. NHA may 

also need to stop conducting comprehensive criminal background checks of applicants. 

NHA's current screening practices prevent sex offenders, career criminals and gang 

members from being admitted to the program. However, these background checks are 

expensive and will need to be eliminated if administrative fees continue to decline. 

If Congress intends to keep funding these programs so poorly that they become 

ineffective, then Congress is just wasting the precious tax dollars. 

Section 8 FSS Program 

The administration is proposing to consolidate the Section 8 Family Self Sufficiency 

(FSS) program with the Public Housing Self Sufficiency Program. This proposal 

threatens to reduce funding for program coordinators. Every year, NHA applies for and 

receives the Section 8 FSS program grant funding. This funding has allowed NHA to 

continue offering the program to career oriented and motivated partiCipants to help them 

achieve the goal of self sufficiency. The continued grant funding along with our 

organizational changes has also allowed us to retain our highly trained and experienced 

employees to work on both the FSS and HCV programs. The consolidated program 

proposal must also provide sufficient funding for existing programs. 

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME 

In the past year, Califomia has lost important economic development, neighborhood 

revitalization, and affordable housing tools through the elimination of redevelopment 

agencies by the State of California and the reduction of CDBG and HOME funding. 

This year the City's CDBG and HOME entitlements are 33% what they were just three 

years ago. The reduced funding has made it more difficult for the City to keep up with 

the need and fund certain programs, such as code enforcement, housing rehabilitation 

and first time homebuyers programs. CDBG funding used to support major capital 
602

improvements, such as street repairs and handicap sidewalk ramps. However, the 

amount provided now is not enough to fund these larger projects. The housing 

rehabilitation program and code enforcement funded through CDBG and HOME are 

essential to maintaining the City's aging housing stock and preventing blight. When 

blight is left unchecked, crime increases, housing stock declines, and commercial 

investment leaves the area. 

For the City, the cuts to CDBG and HOME are akin to the deferred maintenance of a 

home. If the homeowner cannot pay the $500 needed to patch a hole in the roof, in just 

a few years the homeowner will have to repair dry rot and other damages that may cost 

three times as much as the simple patch. Deferred maintenance of our cities means 

increasing costs down the road, whether it is for a deteriorated road, a troubled child, or 

a senior citizen's roof. 

Closing 

In closing, I strongly encourage the Subcommittee to reject sequestration and restore 

responsible funding to our Nation's critical housing safety net. 
603

April 25, 2013 

Housing Authority 

of the 

City of San Buenaventura 

(805) 648-5008 Fax (805) 643-7984 

Denise M. WISe, Chief Executive Officer 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States House of Representatives 

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 

John Polanskey, Chair 

Francisco Sanchez 

Selfa saucedo 

Bill Watkins 

JIm White 

Jenny York 

RE: Federal Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request, U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development 

Honorable Members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and 

Urban Development: 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide the testimony of the Housing Authority of the City of 

San Buenaventura (HACSB) regarding the Federal Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request of the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (RUD), specifically the following requests for 

the Office of Public and Indian Housing: Public Housing Operating Fund ($4.6 Billion); Public 

Housing Capital Fund ($2 Billion); and Tenant-Based Rental Assistance ($19.989 Billion). 

The fundamental mission of the HACSB is to provide decent, safe and affordable housing in 

quality communities that enhance the quality of life for vulnerable families in California's 24th 

and 26th Congressional districts. As the public housing agency (PHA) for the City of San 

Buenaventura, we administer BUD-funded low income housing programs that serve thousands 

of needy California constituents. In particular, we provide housing assistance to veterans, the 

elderly, and the disabled through our public housing and rental assistance programs, and we have 

an outstanding waitlist of thousands more in need. We are rated as a High Performer under all 

HUD scoring criteria, for both our Public Housing and Housing Choice Voucher programs. 

Due to the recent federal budget cuts, particularly Sequestration and the Fiscal Year 2013 

Continuing Resolution, our ability to serve these families is greatly diminished. This has a direct 

measurable impact to our community, since cuts have resulted in freezes to our Housing Choice 

Voucher (also known as "Section 8") program as well as reconsideration of the Veterans Affairs 

Supportive Housing (VASH) voucher program, both of which are funded through the $19.989 

Billion Tenant-Based Rental Assistance appropriation in HUD's budget request. The HACSB is 

no longer offering Section 8 vouchers to eligible families on our waitIist due to shortfalls in both 

Housing Assistance Payment funds and Administrative Fee funds. As program beneficiaries 

leave the program, vouchers are being held back from re-Ieasing in order to reduce the Housing 

Authority's outstanding Housing Assistance Payment obligations to prevent further shortfalls in 

funding and reduce administrative costs. And, since the management of V ASH vouchers must 

be funded from Section 8 Administrative Fees (they do not include administrative funding on 

their own) that are being provided at 69% of the requisite funding level, this program may 

become too expensive for the HACSB to administer to the great detriment of homeless veterans. 

Despite the cuts, the HACSB has shown its commitment to exploring innovative programs that 

seek to do more with less, not only by extensively leveraging Low Income Housing Tax Credit 

995 RIVERSIDE STREET, VENTURA, CALIFORNIA 93004 (805) 648-5008 FAX (805) 643-7984 

TOO (805) 648-7351 
604

(LIHTC) equity funds, but also by participating in the Rental Assistance Demonstration 

Program (RAD) described by HUD in its budget request. This new concept mixes public and 

private finance with long term rental subsidies to infuse badly needed capital improvement funds 

into existing public housing. It does so by converting public housing units to the more flexible 

stream of Project-Based Vouchers that promises to ease administrative costs and provide for 

better reserve funding. In the HACSB's RAD project, the conversion of 144 units will 

immediately infuse over $10 million in capital funding from private sources, guaranteed by the 

project based voucher income, thereby preserving a significant affordable housing resource in 

the community and improving the lives of elderly and disabled constituents. Every dollar 

provided for the valuable HUD programs we administer can assist in leveraging other local and 

state resources to provide desperately needed housing for the high-cost community we serve. 

Public Housing Operating Fund 

It is absolutely critical that the Public Housing Operating 

Fund appropriation receive the maximum funding amount 

available (beyond the HUD request) to avoid a number of 

unacceptable outcomes, including but not limited to the 

following: I) a reduction in the national unit count; 2) shifting 

resources away from the lowest income populations to 

generate higher rent revenues; 3) deferral of necessary repairs and maintenance; 4) selective noncompliance with statutory/administrative regulations; 5) PHA employee furloughs and layoffs; 6) 

elimination of otherwise unfunded resident services programs; and 7) disinvestment in the 

neediest neighborhoods. The HACSB would recommend an appropriation of $5.0 Billion at the 

very least, which is approximately 8.7% higher than the HUD request. 

The Public Housing Operating Fund appropriation is the stream of subsidy that makes the 

operation of low-income public housing possible. As mentioned in HUD's justification for this 

request, there are 1.1 million households currently being served by this funding source, and any 

cut thereto translates directly to disastrous results, such as those listed above. In Ventura, the 

HACSB operates 716 public housing units serving over 1,500 people. Over 80% of the families 

served by the HACSB's public housing program earn 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) 

or less.! These are families that cannot afford rents in the high cost private rental market; 

without public housing, they would have to choose between overextending themselves to pay 

more of their income than they can afford for rent, or live in the streets. Additionally, the 

HACSB maintains a waitlist of over 3,200 families, who are waiting as long as 5 years for a 

chance to obtain subsidized rental housing. 

As described in the HUD justification, the amount requested would provide for a public housing 

operating subsidy that falls short of the estimated need by a full 10%. Operating Fund 

eligibility is determined based on four factors that reflect the actual cost of operating a housing 

unit. After years of reduced funding and last year's operating reserve offset, many PHAs will be 

unable to continue running public housing at acceptable levels. HUD describes the use of Public 

I According to HUD, the Ventura County median income is $86,700. The average annual income for HACSB 

public housing families is $16,974,19.6% of the median income or 109% ofthe 2013 Federal poverty level for a 2 

person family. 

2 
605

Housing Operating Funds, but their justification leaves out a myriad of ordinary cost items 

beyond the operation of housing units that have no other funding source. For example, PHAs are 

obligated to further fair housing, including the provision of reasonable accommodations as well 

as oral and written translation services to limited English speakers, with no corresponding or 

additional source of funding. These unfunded mandates place additional strain on already 

diminishing resources. 

In the current statutory and regulatory 

environment, PHAs are put in an impossible 

situation. We are required to operate under 

an "Asset Management Model" based on 

private property management in the market 

rate rental housing market, but are 

simultaneously burdened with "a significant 

level of administrative and program 

implementation requirements that go well 

beyond the activities that other real estate 

owners and operators, including those in 

other HUD supported multifamily programs, must perform.,,2 Compound this reality with a 

current funding proration level of 73% of the Public Housing Operating Fund, prior years of 

drastically inadequate funding, continued deferral of maintenance and capital needs, the raid of 

PHA reserves by HUD, and a request that will only allow 90% prorated funding, and you can 

see that PHAs across the country will be unable to function properly. As long as policy makers 

continue to expect performance from PHAs that is comparable to private sector counterparts, 

funding should provide for that level of service, which includes an ability to build reserve 

balances without fear of losing them to HUD or maintain full staffing levels without furloughs to 

accomplish all the intake, verification, and processing work required by 42 U.S.C. 1437, et seq. 

The only possible outcome of HUD's FY14 request is declining performance indicators for 

PHAs nationwide under scoring factors that focus on Asset Management performance standards 

on par with private sector for-profit management companies. PHAs will find creative new ways 

to cut costs and provide the crucial services demanded by our missions, but we will not likely be 

able to maintain the performance standards being demanded if funded at HUD's requested level. 

Public Housing Capital Fund 

HUD's Public Housing Capital Fund appropriation request is appallingly low by any acceptable 

measure or study of capital needs inventory-wide, particularly in light of declining funding 

balances over the past several years. The HACSB would recommend funding this appropriation 

at $4.0 Billion alone for formula capital grants,3 with HUD's other requests funded separately. 

Such a funding amount would still do little to bring the nation's housing stock current on unmet 

2 HUD Public Housing Operating Fund 2014 Summary Statement and Initiatives, J-4. 

J See HUD Public Housing Capital Fund 2014 Summary Statement and initiatives, K-3. This would be 204% 

higher than HUD's formula grant request. 

3 
606

existing capital needs, estimated at over $25 Billion,4 but it would be closer to industry estimates 

as necessary to accommodate the annual capital need accrual. 

In the case of the HACSB, under HUD's formula capital grant allocation to our 716 units, the 

agency received less than $1 Million. This amount of funding is insufficient to accomplish 

major systems or physical plant projects and thus has to be pooled over years to accomplish 

major overhauls. With an inventory of units that are almost all older than the I 970s, this 

allocation is insufficient, and will only continue to decrease going forward. Our participation in 

the RAD program will reduce the number of public housing units going into the formula 

calculation, dropping our future grants significantly. 

PHAs and our partners need certainty in future grant allocations in order to access and leverage 

private capital, which is the only conceivable avenue to meet the ever-growing capital needs. 

Increasing Capital Fund grants will draw more private funding and reduce future appropriation 

needs for a number of years to corne; it is nearly guaranteed that every dollar provided can 

be multiplied in leveraged financing arrangements by PHAs across the country. For 

example, the HACSB RAD project will leverage HUD funds at a ratio of 4 to I. 

Tenant-Based Rental Assistance 

HUD's appropriation request for the Section 8 program, both Housing Assistance Payment 

(HAP) funds and Administrative Fee funding, fall short of actual needs and should be increased 

to the maximum extent practicable. The HACSB would recommend HAP funding of at least 

S18.5 Billion and Administrative Fee funding of S2.0 Billion, increases of 3% and 18% 

respectively, in order to provide for the actual amount of HAP obligations that will be 

outstanding in the coming yearS and to repair the fiscal damage inflicted by funding shortfalls 

provided under the 2013 Continuing Resolution that has decimated PHA administrative fee 

reserves and forced 29 PHAs to return their HCV programs last year alone.6 The HACSB 

request would prevent some of the following unacceptable results: I) freezing issuance of new 

vouchers to families on waiting lists; 2) reduction of number of families served nationwide; 3) 

selective non-compliance with statutory/administrative regulations; 4) PHA employee furloughs 

and layoffs; 5) elimination of otherwise unfunded beneficiary services programs; 6) 

disinvestment in the neediest neighborhoods; 7) closure of small Section 8-only PHAs; and 8) 

return ofVASH Vouchers funded by cut administrative fees. 

The HAP funding appropriation is the stream of subsidy that makes the operation of Section 8 

voucher programs possible. As mentioned in HUD's justification for this request, there are 2.2 

million households currently being served by this funding source, and any cut thereto translates 

directly to disastrous results, such as those listed above. In Ventura, the HACSB administers 

over 1,300 vouchers serving over 2,600 people. Over 81 % of the families served by the 

HACSB's public housing program earn 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI) or less. 

These are families that cannot afford rents in the high cost private rental market; without rental 

assistance, they would have to choose between overextending themselves to pay more of their 

4 Capital Needs in the Public Housing Program, Abt Associates Inc., November 24, 20 I O. 

5 Rather than relying on assumed savings that will require other Acts of Congress to realize. 

6 See HUD Tenant·Based Rental Assistance 2014 Summary Statement and Initiatives, 0.2. 

4 
607

income than they can afford for rent, or live in the streets. Additionally, the HACSB maintains a 

waitlist of nearly 6,000 families, who are waiting 5-7 years for rental assistance. 

HUD's request, which would result in HAP shortfalls absent legislative reform, could continue 

the current trends whereby PHAs are freezing voucher issuance and cancelling HAP contracts to 

avoid overextension. Every HAP contract represents an obligation of the PHA to pay a landlord 

in the private rental market, and failure to provide funding not only forces PHAs to renege on 

these obligations, but destroys confidence in the program and results in tenant eviction beyond 

the control of program beneficiaries. This leads to increased housing cost burdens on extremely 

low income families, increased homelessness, and decreased housing choices. Currently, HAP 

payments are being provided at 94% eligibility. The HACSB is holding vouchers as they 

become available by attrition since leasing them would cause HAP funding shortfalls. We 

project being unable to afford Section 8 HAP obligations entirely by January if funding is 

not increased, particularly if landlords request rent increases to which they are legally entitled. 

While HAP funding is used to fund rental assistance obligations to landlords, the Administrative 

Fee funding appropriation is used to fund PHA management and operations. PHAs use 

administrative fees to fund all the statutory and regulatory program compliance, monitoring, 

evaluation, and management functions imposed on the Section 8 program. Administrative fees 

have been continually cut over the last several years since HUD has been unable to provide 

adequate justifications for full funding and is unable to this day to respond to the simple 

question: "How much does it cost to administer a Section 8 voucher?" While HUD might not 

be able to answer this question without completion of "an in-depth time-and-motion study", 

PHAs can assure you that funding only the HUD requested amount, which will result in an 82% 

prorated amount, is simply not enough. Congress and HUD will continue to experience 

closure of Section 8 programs nationwide at these funding levels, and will see returns of V ASH 

vouchers, since they must be supported by Section 8 administrative fees. 

The HACSB appreciates the opportunity to provide the House Appropriations Subcommittee on 

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development with the agency's position on the FY 2014 

HUD Budget Request. We respectfully request that you amend the appropriations and pass 

them favorably, and we thank you very much for your dedicated support of our families and 

programs. 

5 
608

A (AHA California Association of Housing Authorities C<llrtormaAssocialionofHousingAuthorIDe5 

Written Testimony of the California Association of Housing Authorities 

Mary Ellen Shay, CAHA Manager 

Before the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and 

Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

Regarding 

FY 2014 Budget, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

Thank you for the opportunity to present written testimony regarding the FY 2014 HUD budget. 

The California Association of Housing Authorities (CAHA) represents the 113 housing 

authorities in the State of California. Together, we administer approximately 320,000 Section 8 

Housing Choice Vouchers for the elderly, disabled and families with children, partner with the 

Veterans Administration to provide housing vouchers for 8,100 homeless veterans, and own 

approximately 39,100 public housing units. In addition, we provide housing and supportive 

services to thousands of very low income households under an array of other HUD and nonHUD programs, including the Low Income Housing Tax Credit. Our testimony pertains to the 

Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) and the Public Housing Program administered by 

HUD. 

Housing Choice Voucher Program. The FY 2013 budget fimded us at a 92.5% proration for 

the HCV Program. This is the lowest level in the 38-year life of the HCV Program. As a result, 

housing authorities are drafting procedures to terminate existing tenants from the HCV Program 

and HUD has estimated that 125,000 families nationwide could lose their housing a~sistance, 

some 15,700 in California. These are families who have already signed leases with their 

landlords-landlords who, likewise, are dependent on the HCV Program subsidy payments to 

make their mortgage payments. The mission of housing authorities is to house people, not 

terminate their assistance resulting in homelessness. We understand that increasing fimding for 

the HCV Program to serve all potentially eligible families is not possible in these economic 

times. However, we ask that you provide sufficient fimding in the FY 2014 budget to renew 

assistance to all current participants so that no family loses its housing. 

HCV Program Administrative Fees. Housing authorities are paid according to a formula to 

administer the HCV Program. The FY 2013 budget fimded us at a 69% proration which, like the 

HCV rental subsidy, is the lowest in the 38-year history of the Program's operation. While some 

may say that 100% of the formula is too rich, CAHA believes that no one can argue that 69% is 

sufficient. 

1 
609

The HCY Program Administrative Fee proration has been steadily decreasing over the last five 

years as follows: 2009 - 88%; 2010 - 93%; 2011 85%; 2012 - 80% and 2013 - 69%. To 

manage, housing authorities are doing lay-offs, mandating furloughs, cutting salaries and 

benefits and reducing office hours. According to the National Association of Housing and 

Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO), since FY 2003, the last time housing authorities received 

100% of their Administrative Fee, 213 housing authorities have "handed back" their HCY 

Program to HUD or transferred it to another housing authority. 

CAHA believes that it takes people to help people. Housing authority staff determine family 

eligibility and rent annually, maintain the waiting list, inspect every unit every year per HUD's 

Housing Quality Standards, outreach to landlords, conduct criminal background checks, maintain 

program integrity and prevent fraud, and counsel families to find appropriate housing. These 

activities are labor intensive, particularly as the regulatory requirements are overly-burdensome 

and far in excess of what would be required to administer a sound, integrity-based HCY 

Program. In addition to restoration of the Administrative Fee funding to a 90% proration, 

CAHA respectfully asks that you include five regulatory relief measures in your deliberations: 

I. Biennial Inspections The HCY Program requires annual inspections of all subsidized 

units. Moving to a biennial schedule would reduce inspection work by 50%. Most 

Moving To Work (MTW) agencies have already successfully adopted initiatives that 

reduce unit inspections to a bieunial schedule with special monitoring/sanctions for units 

that fail to meet standards. 

2. Biennial or Triennial Income Re-certifications for Fixed Income Households - The 

HCY Program requires annual recertification of all participating households. However, 

approximately 50% of Section 8 households are elderly and/or disabled and typically 

have fixed incomes. Most MTW agencies have already successfully adopted initiatives 

that permit biennial or triennial re-certifications for fixed income households. 

3. Adoption of a National Waiver for Reduction of Payment Standards - The HCY 

Program requires subsidy levels, called "payment standards," pegged to 90-110% of local 

fair market rents (FMRs). When funding is insufficient, regulations permit housing 

authorities to apply to HUD for a waiver to reduce the payment standard below 90%. 

Each request is handled individually by HUD and takes a remarkable amount of time and 

resources to process. During this Section 8 funding crisis, CAHA requests that HUD 

process a nationwide waiver for payment standards as low as 80% for housing authorities 

with insufficient Section 8 funding from HUD to meet the subsidy requirements of their 

outstanding vouchers. 

4. Reduced Payment Standard Waiver Implementable Immediately - Per HUD 

regulations, the waiver permitting a reduction in payment standards cited in #3 above 

may only be implemented over the course of 1-2 years. CAHA requests that the 

proposed nationwide waiver be implementable on an immediate basis. 

5. Treasury Offset Program - The Treasury Offset Program is a centralized offset 

program, administered by the Financial Management Service's Debt Management 

Services, to collect delinquent debts owed to federal agencies and states, typically 

2 
610

through IRS refimds offset of another U.S. govemment-issued payment. Authorization 

for housing authorities to participate in the program would assist in the collection of debts 

owed by current or fonner HCV Program and Public Housing Program participants. 

Amounts recovered would become available for current program expenses. The State of 

California EDD already pennits this activity at the state level. 

Public Housing. The Public Housing Operating Fund is supposed to cover the difference 

between the rent paid by Public Housing residents and the housing authorities' cost to manage 

the housing. The Operating Fund was structured based on a cost study of well-managed 

multifamily housing done by Harvard University. Despite the study, however, over the last 10 

years (except for ARRA fimds provided in 2010) the Operating Fund has not been fimded at 

100% of the fonnula and in FY 2013 was at only 82%. 

The President's FY 2014 budget requests $4.6 billion for the Operating Fund. According to 

HUD, this figure represents 90% of estimated eligibility under the Operating Fund formula. 

CAHA respectfully asks that the Subcommittee appropriate Operating Funds at the 90% 

proration level at a minimum; full fimding would be at $5.17 billion. 

The President's FY 2014 budget also requests $2 billion for the Public Housing Capital Fund, 

which housing authorities use to make major capital improvements to their public housing. For 

FY 2013, the Capital Fund received only $1.789 billion after accounting for the impact of 

sequestration, the lowest level in the history of the Public Housing Program. The President's 

budget anticipates that, after set-asides, approximately $1.95 billion would be applied toward 

formula Capital Fund grants for FY 2014. This request continues to fall far short of the $3.4 

billion in armually accruing capital needs estimated by the 2010 Abt Associates' Capital Needs 

Assessment study commissioned by HUD. No fimding to build additional, new Public Housing 

has been provided in years, so it is critical to preserve and sustain the Public Housing that exists. 

CAHA respectfully asks that the Subcommittee appropriate $3 billion for the Capital Fund. 

CAHA understands well our nation's budget issues and is poised to do its part. Other than full 

fimding to protect all tenants currently receiving HCV Program assistance, all of our fimding 

requests are for less than the fonnula amounts. The 5% cut imposed by sequestration does not 

necessarily sound unreasonable - but it is not just a 5% cut. It is 5% cut from the lowest amount 

historically appropriated for our housing programs and will have significant impacts on some of 

our country's poorest citizens. 

Thank you for considering our requests. 

Contact: Mary Ellen Shay, CAHA Manager 

1006 Fourth Street, 6th Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Phone 916-444-0288, fax 916-444-3408 email: cahapha@gmail.com 

3 
611

SAA 

SOCIETY FOR AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY 

Testimony of the Society of American Archaeology 

Before the House Appropriations Committee 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, 

And Related Agencies 

On the Federal Highway Administration's FY2014 Budget Request 

April 24, 2013 

Program Activity (in millions) 

Transportation Alternatives Program 

FY2013 

$808.7 

FY2014 (request) 

$819.9 

The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) is pleased to present the following 

testimony in support of the president's FY2014 budget for the Transportation Alternatives 

Program (TAP). The request calls for $819.9 million for TAP, an increase of $11.2 million from 

FY2013. 

SAA is an international organization that, since its founding in 1934, has been dedicated 

to the research about and interpretation and protection of the archaeological heritage of the 

Americas. With more than 7,000 members, SAA represents professional archaeologists in 

colleges and universities, museums, government agencies, and the private sector. SAA has 

members in all 50 states as well as many other nations around the world. 

With the enactment of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century Act (MAP-21), 

the Federal-aid Highway Program saw a major restructuring of its initiatives. One of these, the 

former Transportation Enhancements Program, was streamlined and consolidated with the 

Recreational Trails and Safe Routes to School Programs to form the new TAP. 

TAP helps communities improve their transport-related spaces by matching federal funds 

with local money to carry out activities in conjunction with a transportation undertaking. 

Specifically, TAP activities mitigate the impacts of the building of transportation infrastructure, 

carry out work made necessary by the undertaking, increase access to transport options for 

citizens, and beautify transportation corridors. 

There are ten activities eligible for funding under the formula portion of TAP. Though 

SAA supports all of them, two are of particular interest to our members-archaeological 

planning, research and surveys, which advance undertaking construction; and preservation of 

historic resources, including historic transportation facilities, affected by that construction. 

Under TAP and its predecessor program, more than $1.5 billion in federal and matching dollars 

has been dedicated to archaeological and historic preservation projects since FY1992. This 
612

funding has enabled localities to preserve and protect a broad spectrum of cultural resources, 

some of which have proven to be valuable assets to their economies. 

In Maryland, for example, the State Highway Administration partnered with the 

Maryland Historic Trust and the U.S. Naval Heritage and History Command in 2010 to search 

for the site of the wreck of the U.S.S. Scorpion, which was lost in battle with the British on the 

Patuxent River during the War of 1812. With more than $2 million from the then-Transportation 

Enhancement Program, and an additional $2.3 million in state and local matching funds, a multiyear underwater archaeological dig recovered significant artifacts for use by museums and 

websites. Commemorative signage also was erected, and future plans include the construction of 

a coffer dam that will allow for dry excavation and enhance tourist visibility of the wreck. 

SAA recognizes the difficult fiscal situation that confronts the nation. It is crucial that 

every federal dollar be spent wisely, and that this spending has maximum economic impact. 

TAP activity funds reach localities and help spur community development in ways that few other 

federal initiatives do. Further, under MAP-21 states now possess more flexibility on how to 

allocate their surface transportation grants. TAP monies will be more competitively and 

effectively awarded, going to those activities likely to have the most benefit. 

We respectfully request the subcommittee support the president's FY2014 budget request 

for TAP. 
613

The Honorable Tom Latham 

Chairman 

Transportation, Housing and 

Urban Development Appropriations 

2358A Rayburn House Office Building 

April 24, 2013 

Dear Chairman Latham and Ranking Member Pastor, 

The Honorable Ed Pastor 

Ranking Member 

Transportation, Housing and 

Urban Development Appropriations 

Longworth House Office Building 

The National Housing Trust (NHT) respectfuUy urges you to tiIIl!.li.I.rul the Project-Based Section 8 

program in the FY2014 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill. 

The National Housing Trust (NHT) is a 26 year old national nonprofit organization dedicated to the 

preservation and Improvement of existing affordable rental housing. Through our work in real estate 

development and affordable housing finance, the Trust has helped save and improve more than 25,000 

apartments in 41 states, leveraging more than $1.5 bJUion in investment for affordable housing. The 

majority of these apartments have HUD subsidized mortgages or prOject-based rental assistance contracts. 

As you are aware, the Project-Based Section 8 program provides critical rental assistance to over 

one million households across the country, in both urban and rural communities. Over 60% of the residents 

served by the program are lOW-income seniors or persons with disabilities. The private sector owners 

entered contractual obligations with the federal government to supply affordable apartments for lowincome households rely on rental assistance to maintain a property's financial and physical feasibility and 

provide services to residents. 

HUD is currently short-funding contracts, providing property owners less than the promised year of 

funding. Short-funding does not save the government taxpayer funds. It is simply a giromick that shifts 

costs to futore years. More importantly, it risks an increase in owner program opt-outs, thus ironically 

requiring an ~ in funding for tenant protection vouchers. 

In addition to providing long-term affordable apartments for some of the most vulnerable 

popUlations, the Project-Based Section 8 program encourages private investment in housing development, 

generates local jobs and Is a valuable source of tax revenue for communities. According to HUD, this 

program supports over 100,000 annually and provides local communities $460 million in property taxes. 

Further, owners are able to leverage rental assistance contracts to secure private financing. 

enabling them to undertake rehabilitation and preservation projects. Short-funding can lead to erosion of 

lender and investor confidence, resulting in more demanding underwriting. increased transactional costs 

and limiting access to capital. According to HUD's FY2014 Congressional Justification: 

"PBRA contracts act as a critical credit enhancement for project financing. allowing owners 

to leverage private debt and equity to permit project refinancing and recapitalization. The 

periodic refinancing of the debt underlying these projects assisted by PBRA generates 

significant capital available for investment in construction repairs and improvements." 

1101 10th Street, N.W., Suite 400 • Washington, D.C. 20007 • 202·333·8931 • FAX, 102·833·1031 
614

Finally, short funding will potentially undennine FHA. According to HUD, there is $13 billion 

in FHA insured debt underlying properties assisted by Project-Based Section 8 contracts. 

The Section 8 funding of project based Section 8 dramatically reduces taxpayer expenditures in 

Medicaid, Medicare and emergency shelter and healthcare services. Project based Section 8 costs 

approximately $8,000 annually, while Medicaid funded nursing homes cost the federal and state 

approximately $50,000 annually. Further, long-tenn affordable housing reduces expenditures in 

emergency healthcare services and emergency shelters by $10,000 a year. 

While HUD's FY2014 budget request is an increase from the FY2013 enacted level, it is still 

insufficient to end short-funding in FY2014. 

Secretary Donovan indicated at the hearing on April 17th that an additional $1.2 billion is needed to 

fully fund contracts for 12 months in FY14, stating: 

" ... HUD will be short on funding for contracts in FY13 and will be forced to short-fund contracts in 

FY14. The account will be $1.2 billion short if sequestration is not reversed. If Congress does not 

appropriate the money, we will short-fund the contracts ... O\o\'Ilers will start to opt-out and HUD will lose 

affordable housing." 

There are 22,408 apartments supported by this program in distticts that are represented by 

members on your subcommittee. Below is a chart that provides district specific infonnation: 

Rep. Tom Latham 2795 

Rep. Frank Wolf 550 

Rep. Charles Dent 3,032 

Reo. Kav Gratlf!er 1,038 

Ren. Tom Cole 2,439 

Ren. !aime Herrera 1,624 

Rep. David Joyce 1,882 

Rep. Ed Pastor 2 647 

Reo, David Price 1,991 

Reo. Mike OUil<lev 3,978 

ReD. Tim Rvan 432 

Under-funding in this program will leave many owners without the necessary resources needed to 

maintain properties, provide Critical resident services and ultimately lead to a reduction in affordable 

apartments available to low-income households. 

The National Housing Trust urges you to provide at least $10.7 billion funding to the Project-Based 

Section 8 program in orderto fully fund contracts for 12 months. 

Sincerely, 

Michael Bodaken 

President 
615

Rep. Elaine Nekritz, Illinois; Chair, MIPRC 

Tim Hoeffner, Michigan; Vice Chair, MIPRC 

Joan Bray, Missouri; Financial Officer, MIPRC 

Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission 

701 E. 22nd Street, Suite 110 

lombard, Illinois 60148 

630.925.1922 

miprc@miprc.org 

April 26, 2013 

As officers of the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission (MIPRC), and on behalf of 

MIPRC, we are pleased to submit this request to the Subcommittee on Transportation, 

Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies regarding the fiscal year 2014 

budget. For Fiscal Year 2014, we are requesting the following be appropriated to the Federal 

Railroad Administration: 

1. $1 billion for the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program (PRIIA Sections 

301, 302 and 501); 

2. $500 million for the TIGER program (ARM TItle XXII); 

3. $1 million to continue the efforts of the Next Generation Equipment Committee (PRIIA 

Section 305); 

4. $100 million to assist in implementation of Positive Train Control (PRIIA Section 105); 

5. $300 million for a state corridor program (PRIIA Section 209); and 

6. $25 million for the Rail line Relocation & Improvement (RlR) Capital Grant Program 

(SAFETEA-LU Section 9002). 

The Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission is a ten-state interstate compact 

commission that promotes, coordinates and supports regional improvements to passenger rail 

service. Our member states include Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio and Wisconsin. We believe that intercity passenger rail is playing 

a critical role in the region's transportation network. Thereby, rail projects need a federal 

partnership with states, similar to that of other modes of transportation, to assist with the 

capital investments necessary to build a modern, efficient passenger system in the Midwest. 

The Midwest is a testament to the fact that people increasingly want the option to take the 

train, especially with more frequent and reliable service. Ridership on existing corridor service 

(100-600 miles) in the Midwest has been growing rapidly. In FY 2012, ridership on the nine 

Midwestern corridor routes combined was almost 3.2 million, double the number of riders on 

those routes in FY 2004 (please see Table 1 an page 4). Five-year growth (between FY 2007 and 

FY 2012) was 35 percent (please see Table 2 on page 4). 

Federal funds awarded to our states beginning in FY 2009 have allowed for the development of 

the first phase of the Midwest Regional Rail System - a 3,OOO-mile, nine-state passenger rail 

system plan to implement a network of faster, more frequent regional service (up to 110 mph) 

in 100- to 500-mile corridors, with its hub in Chicago (please see map on page 5). This 

development is already bringing significant economic development and jobs to our region. 
616

MIPRC FY 2014 Appropriations Request to US House THUD Subcommittee of Appropriations (cant.) 

The full build-out of the MWRRS is expected to have an overall economic benefit of $23 billion 

while creating more than S7,000 permanent jobs. 

On behalf of our Midwestern states, we ask that appropriations be included for intercity 

passenger rail (the HSIPR, TIGER, NGEC, PTC and RLR programs) within the FY 2014 budget of 

the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies 

to allow for our Midwestern states - and other states - to continue to develop this important 

travel mode. Explanations for each of the six requests are included below. We thank you for 

your consideration. 

1. $1 billion for the High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) program (PRIIA Sections 301, 

302 and 501) 

With no earmarks and a stress on "readiness to proceed," awards should be made 

competitively with a mandate to be spent promptly. Ten percent of the funds made available 

should be used for state and multistate planning. 

Funds made available under PRIIA through the federal High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail 

(HSIPR) program in FY 2009 and FY 2010 are allowing the Midwest to begin implementing the 

first phases of a plan to bring faster, more frequent passenger rail service to the region. For 

example, HSIPR funds awarded to Illinois and Michigan have already enabled 110 mph service 

on portions of the Chicago to Detroit and the Chicago to St. louis routes. On-time performance 

has improved dramatically on the St. Louis to Kansas City corridor by addressing key 

chokepoints along that route. In addition, necessary planning and environmental work on 

several other Midwestern corridors - including Chicago to Minneapolis/St. Paul, 

Minneapolis/St. Paul to Duluth, MN, and Chicago to Omaha - has been made possible through 

the federal/state partnership provided for intercity passenger rail under PRIIA. 

Multistate planning and coordination have been a fundamental aspect of our region's business 

plan for intercity passenger rail from the beginning. While it is challenging to prioritize and 

harmonize a significant number of high-value projects, such an approach leads to greater 

efficiency and a higher return on investment. 

Especially since no additional funding for the HSIPR program was appropriated in FY 2011, FY 

2012 or FY 2013, our states need funds for this important program to be appropriated in FY 

2014 so we can continue the next phase of planning and construction. 

2. $500 million for the TIGER program (ARRA Title XXII) 

We support $500 million for the TIGER program, which has funded an array of critical projects. 

We would urge that again in FY 2014, the emphasis be placed on awards based on a rigorous 

benefit-cost analysis. 

April 26, 2013 20f5 
617

MIPRC FY 2,014 Appropriations Request to US House TH/..(O 5,ubcommittel{! of Appropriations (cant.) 

3. $1 million to continue the efforts of the Next Generation Equipment Committee (PRIIA 

Section 305) 

PRIIA Section 305 has helped both to stimulate the American railcar manufacturing industry and 

to begin the process of bringing a new generation of equipment on line. This highly successful 

effort should receive $1 million to continue its efforts. Section 305 called for the establishment 

of the Next Generation Corridor Equipment Pool Committee (NGEC) "to design, develop 

specifications for, and procure standardized next-generation corridor equipment." Since its 

inception in 2010, the NGEC has developed and adopted five specifications for next generation 

rail equipment and has initiated a ground-breaking multistate procurement for next generation 

bi-Ievel passenger rail cars for California, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri and Iowa. A second 

multistate procurement, also for the Midwestern states, California and Washington, is currently 

under way for the manufacture of diesel-electric locomotives. By providing publicly-available 

standardized specifications, the NGEC has created a common platform from which multiple 

states can procure rail equipment. The standardized specifications make it possible to buy 

equipment faster, at a lower cost, and with lower future costs relating to maintenance, 

rebuilding and the purchase of additional equipment. NGEC-developed specifications are 

available to all competitors in the rail equipment marketplace. That means equipment procured 

will expand employment in production, supply and manufacturing industries in the United 

States. FY 2014 funding will allow for maintaining and updating current specifications and for 

fostering additional procurements. 

4. $100 million to assist in implementation of Positive Train Control (PRIIA Section 105) 

The implementation of positive train control is a daunting task for all concerned; we ask that 

Congress provide $100 million to assist in this vital effort. Not only is the cost of nationwide PTC 

installation expected to be more than $10 billion, questions remain as to the reliability and 

maturity of the technology for all forms of mainline freight trains and high density environments 

5. $300 million for a state corridor program (PRIIA Section 209) 

Implementation of the uniform methodology for charging states for passenger rail service on 

corridors less than 750 miles (required under PRIIA Section 209) begins in October 2013. We 

strongly support $300 million for a five-year state corridor program. These funds would be used 

both to purchase new equipment and to provide marginal funding for the implementation of 

PRIIA Section 209. The implementation of 209 did not start immediately after passage of the 

legislation in 2008, nor is it by any means complete. It is critical to note that $300 million would 

be for the delta between the amount currently paid by the state and the amount agreed to 

under the requirements of Section 209 and negotiations between the state and Amtrak, the 

current provider. 

6. $25 million for the Rail Line Relocation & Improvement Capital Grant Program (SAFETEALU Section 9002) 

The Rail line Relocation & Improvement Capital Grant Program (RlR) has assisted rural 

communities to meet safety and operational challenges. These improvements have 

strengthened the overall rail network. We recommend that the program receive $25 million. 

April 26, 2013 3 of 5 
618

MIPRC FY 2014 Appropriotions Request to US House THUD Subcommittee. a/ Appropriations (cont.) 

Ta" J: Ridership Growth on Corridor Service in the Midwest 

FY 2004-FY 2012 

RidershiponCOnidor5erviceintileMidwest: 

Eight year growth was 99 percent 

--

• Campiloclby MIPIIC 

Eiaht-v"", 

Growth 

(FY04to 

FY12 

Aver_ 

An""" GrowthlFY 

04toFY 

12 FY12 

Ta" 2: Ridership Growth on Corridor Service in the Midwest 

Ridershipon Corridor Service in the FY 2007-2012 

Midwest: Five year growth at 35 percent 

Soumo,_ 

~ 

FY2012 

4 week 

A 

68% 

41% 

8% 

4% 

48% 

42% 

36% 

39% 

35% 

~e 

-I 

14% 

8% 

2% 

1% 

10% 

8% 

7% 

8% 

7% 

5.3% 

2.3% 

-3.8% 

2.5% 

1.1% 

5.2% 

4.2% 

-1.6% 36 

35% 3.168.43 

FY04 

Tems.fngle~City6fNrNOrifatts.SouthwutChi#/and011fbmiDUphyrridtnhipnumblrs ... inl:Iu:t.donlytotheMtlnt~theridlrJhfpis 

a.ppIiabIIt to ttopsOti theCOlTirJor N. rioMrshipon the T«JttU &rgI« otrtsldaofthe ChfaCo-St. l.ouisconidor is not jnc:kded~ 

• "",,-byMIPIIC 

April 26, 2013 40f 5 
619

MIPRCFY 2014 Appropriatians Request to US Hal,lse THUD Subcammitteeof Appropriations (cant.) 

..... "...,.,.._.i!' 

-' R ....... ~..(1~ 

~--"---'-'~-'--'" ~-., .... -~~ 6_ 

April 26, 2013 

~f(I,"",_~ 

-~"""' .. ~ ::-_------1---

SofS 
620

Testimony of Saul N. Ramirez, Jr., CEO, National Association of Housing and 

Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and RelatedAgencies 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

April 26, 2013 

Chairman Latham, Ranking Member Pastor, members of the Transportation, Housing and Urban 

Development and Related Agencies Subcommittee; thank you for providing an opportunity for 

outside witnesses to testify with respect to the FY 2014 HUD budget. The National Association 

of Housing and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) is one of the nation's oldest housing 

advocacy organizations. It represents over 3,100 housing and redevelopment authorities 

nationwide who provide decent, safe and affordable housing in neighborhoods of quality for well 

over 2 million families -- including senior citizens, the disabled and our nation's veterans. Our 

members are on the front lines every day assisting to assist vulnerable families and the homeless 

in both urban and rural America. They know what works, what does not and why; they are 

mission-driven and they remain, following decades of service to the community, an essential 

component of the nation's housing delivery system. Our total funding request for HUD programs 

administered by housing and redevelopment authorities is approximately $37.9 billion, not 

including full funding for Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance. A more detailed 

breakdown of our funding requests by program is provided in the chart on page 5. 

Our national network of housing and community development (HCD) professionals stands ready 

to use taxpayers' dollars wisely and with integrity to move us closer to a nation in which all 

people have decent, safe, affordable housing and economic opportunity in viable, sustainable 

communities. NAHRO calls upon the Administration and the Congress to provide responsible 

funding levels for the core federal HCD programs that serve low- and moderate-income families 

at the local level. Recognizing the fiscal realities you face, NAHRO also aggressively seeks a 

more rational, less administratively burdensome regulatory environment. NAHRO supports 

reforms, including essential statutory reforms under the purview of the Banking, Housing and 

Urban Affairs Committee, which will allow local agencies to stretch federal investments further, 

house more families, and pursue targeted community and economic development activities with 

the potential to transform neighborhoods and communities. 

Tipping Point 

Our efforts as a nation to reduce the current federal deficit are important and well-intended. 

Unfortunately, their serious (though unintended) consequences are now affecting vulnerable 

families who would be homeless without the assistance they now receive through programs 

managed by NAHRO members. Limited 302B allocations to this Subcommittee over many 

years, coupled with spending caps implemented as a result of the Budget Control Act of 2011, 

disproportionate reductions in domestic discretionary dollars and the March 1 sequester, have 

resulted in historically low funding prorations for such things as voucher program administration 
621

and the public housing operating fund. Underfunding, coupled with a lack of regulatory relief, 

has finally brought us to a tipping point. Increasing munbers of housing authorities have advised 

or must soon advise vulnerable families currently receiving housing assistance payments that 

they can no longer assist them. More and more housing authorities are returning vouchers -

including V ASH vouchers to HUD because they can no longer afford to administer the 

program (see chart below) . 

......... 

....... ==...w..J ....... 

1· ... 

In addition, structural decisions impacting housing programs, such as the ill-timed reduction in 

public housing authority reserves in FY 2012, have put many housing authorities in a vulnerable 

position. Under current funding scenarios, some housing and redevelopment agencies - notably 

smaller entities in rural areas -- will in time be forced to close their doors. They will no longer be 

able to assist those who currently rely on them, much less families who have been on public 

housing and Section 8 waiting lists for many years. 

Public Housing Operating Fund: 

Appropriations Compared to Formula Eligibility -

Calendar Years 2003 - 2013 

($ billions) 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 :'>010 2011 2012 2013 

..... Formula Eligibility ..... Annual Appropriation 

Section 8 Voucher Programs! 

Housing Assistance Payment and Ongoing Administrative 

Fee Pro-Rations 

i & Voucher lease-up Rates 

1105%~16e\lt168~6l:6O'j6 01% 1"""" ~-

9S%~~~ 8S%~ 8% 

75% :..-_____________ ---:l~-

65% 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 

...... HoliSirlgAss{stance PaVffi6llt Pro-ration 

......-OngolngAdmlnistrativeFee Pro-ration 

-.....-Voueher Lease·up Rate 

Building on the valiant efforts of this Subcommittee to provide necessary dollars within the 

context of reduced allocations coupled with larger budget pressures, housing and redevelopment 

authorities have done more with less for years. The 2014 THUD appropriation provides us with 

an opportunity and a real challenge to deal with the current set of facts on the ground in far too 

many communities across the nation. A return to "regular order" in the Congress must be 
622

coupled with a return to fiscal policies that recognize our nation's core values - notably our 

decades-long commitment to a decent home and suitable living environment for all Americans. 

In this spirit we respectfully urge your consideration and ultimate adoption of following 

principles: 

• Preserve and revitalize the public housing inventory 

• Reform, strengthen and adequately fund the Section 8 program 

• Fully fund community and economic development programs 

• Enact small housing authority reforms 

• Expand the supply of affordable housing 

• Fully fund homeless assistance grant programs 

• Improve the regulatory environment for HCD agencies 

Program-Specific Recommendations 

We hope this Subcommittee, in conjunction with your colleagues on the Banking Committee, 

will let these recommendations guide your work in the formulation of funding decisions and 

necessary reforms for core HUD programs managed by our members. Our own FY 2014 

funding recommendations can be found on page 4 of our testimony. For more detail, NAHRO's 

2013 Legislative and Regulatory Agenda is available online at: 

www.nahro.org/sites/defaultifilesisearchable/2013Agenda.pdf. 

Public Housing 

• Provide full funding for the operating costs and armual capital accrual needs of public 

housing through direct appropriations. 

• Enable greater flexibility to direct available resources toward their highest priority needs, 

regardless offunding source. 

• Seek dedicated resources for the revitalization of severely distressed public housing 

properties. 

• Unlock the value of public housing assets by providing PHAs with a variety of tools to 

leverage and invest in the preservation of their properties. 

• Provide in statute for the establishment of protected capital reserve accounts to allow 

PHAs to plan responsibly for future needs. 

• Improve tools designed to allow PHAs to steward their portfolios as true asset managers, 

including HUD's demolition and disposition regulations. 

• Provide enhanced incentives for energy efficiency upgrades. 

Section 8 

• Provide appropriations sufficient to renew vouchers at actual rental assistance costs for 

all participating households and full funding for ongoing and special administrative fees as 

provided in Section 8(q) of the U.S. Housing Act as amended by the Quality Housing and 

Work Responsibility Act of 1998. 
623

• Provide for a voucher funding formula that is based on the number of families served and 

voucher costs for the most recent calendar year for which data are available. 

• Restore a responsible level of administrative fee funding under voucher programs. 

• Provide for new authority to allow PHAs to utilize a portion of their Housing Assistance 

Payment Reserves to cover unrnet administrative expenses related to leasing and retaining 

leased households. 

• Enact meaningful voucher program reform legislation. 

• Enable the immediate implementation of long-overdue regulatory and administrative 

reforms that will allow for the more efficient use of resources in voucher programs. 

• Provide for a responsible level of funding for the renewal of Section 8 multi-family 

project-based rental assistance (PBRA) contracts. 

• Maintain a level playing field in the competition for contracts under the Section 8 

Performance-Based Contract Administrators initiative. 

Community and Economic Development 

• Restore funding for CDBG to ensure the success of state and local efforts to spur job 

creation and retention, provide vital public services, and expand affordable housing 

opportunities for low- and moderate-income families and individuals. 

• Provide funding for the Sustainable Housing and Communities Initiative separate from 

and not as a set-aside under the CDBG program. 

• Cover the credit subsidy for HUD's Section 108 loan guarantee program, and increase 

the loan guarantee limit to $500 million as previously proposed by the Administration. 

• Restore dedicated funding for HUD's Brownfields Economic Development Initiative. 

• Restore a responsible level of funding for the HOME Program. 

• Enact a budget neutral mandatory funding source for the Housing Trust Fund. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testifY. We look forward to discussing our funding 

recommendations with this Subcommittee in greater detail. 
624

NAHRO 

Recommended FY 2014 Funding Levels for Selected HUD Programs 

IB"-J In" itM/iciRdlllxtlndlcot!o ....... _1>-_*. 

·e __ • tomc..""-O.nd Furth .. c..ntinuing Appn:lP1iC_Act. 2013 ••• aig .. " bytlw President.., Mon::h22. 2013. Figu _ _ app_. <1/(12 p .. cont..-h..aOllJdcut __ """by lho log_n. 

l:\ F.gur. I1IftIIct 5 P*"CfI"It.~oaild aeqUHtratian l*duCtionl • CllCUIIIttICl by the OffICe Of Man~m am BudQII: on t4afCM 1, 2013" 

"01>..". Ad_tion's pmp_ budgot for FY2014. Flg_ do not _ p_" T,.,_io. Initiative HI .... ida. e NAHRO tecamr:rwn~t~ a. for .ndakJ.1.li~ futldirg. Slink lndicIIt:M no PCUjon. 'Tha budgat __ 10 _ aligibiily by. _of $63 million 1I1""'l111 chorq_1o flit _I lind the_I __ dadllCtion _.hold. 

t NAHRO .. rwcommllnd.tian ... ~ :tIl •• 1igibiJly. dlt.m;il'llld .0c01'ding ta CUtrwnt:ltatulls am tegulal:ionS gaveming: such cab.dation$. 'Pmp_ tha a!l_ <I/..r.ty and 0IICIJriIy me __ .. an "';g;blo .... <1/ funding. 

1'. NAHRO" •• uppcri fer this funding t .. jaClClnlirY;ltlnt upDn Nspandlll fiJneting". fOf tI'IiI Op .. q and Capital Funda and tt. .na::tmflnt 

<1/ outharizing log_n requiring thIItMl thilda <1/ aacl1 yuf. funding be a_ad 10 pRlj_ wII ... _ .... 111. load or co-appficanla. 

'The Act authori_ the ... <1/ HAP adjuo!'- fund "forPHAs. that <IaIIpiI<t _0 "'_nablocoat _. __ ... dalarmlnad by the 

Secntary, wo1.dd ohl'WiH tie MqUifwd to tlrmi,.. piI'lticiplitin; f.miliis from thI: plOjpim due to ireufflCinfunda,," 

! ","u",* S235 million in SIIV.inQl ftorn pmpOMd chal1Ql5 10 incoml Wgli:ing. minimum rwnta, ,and tha n.diclllexpense dllductian thrahokt 

.,d the dairmin;ttim of utitity allowances. Al:r;o AISIUJT* an unSplitifwd amount of indittlctfunding thI'ough offuls of "ux:aa" HAP Reserves 

from non-M.\N PHA& and MtW PHAa. 

II Tha Adminiatr.ltion propa_ a1imu...ting tt:. s.ctian 8 FSS .. t ..... ic:la in' favor of a standalone conaolidatrld program to aarve Public Housing 

.,d Sectbn 8 HCV ntaidllnts. 

I The Pet artho.riz:tJlttheuHd'"unobligilted betanclll, includingftlcaqXufM andca·rryave:r, Rlmainingfrorn funds appropriated" for FY 2013 and pri"'_ und.-tho hudingo af "Housing c.mr .... Fund: 'Annual Contributions far _d Housing.' and "P.,jocI,Bllaad RantAJ __ cO' for __ Of or .mondm_ 10 _ 8 projOc!-baaad ""_ and far pa<formanoa-baaad col'll11lcl'd_Ill ... ' 

M NAHRO ouppoFta .auobla. ... lillblUublidy .t ... m In the Icm1 of fun 12-mcnth ""_ ..... WOl fundiMQ. J\ In lieu of appropriation&, the Administr.tion Propo51IS oo6Ietinga fee ftam barroWliJa to caver the progl1llm'a ClWort subsOy costs. 

Apnl 16. 2013 
625

EXECUTIVE COMMitTE! 

PRESIOENT 

JeffersooKeeI 

Chk:k(&1WNatioo 

FlRSTVlCIH'RESlOENT 

IwmaMajelDixQU 

f'wmaBando[Mlsskmlrnfiarrs 

RECORDING SECRETARY 

Edward Thomas 

Central CourrdlofTllngit& Haida 

Indian TribesofAlaska 

TREASURER 

W.RoaAHen 

jamestJJWnSKlaIklmTribe 

REGfONIlL VICE-PIlESIDENTS 

ALASKA 

CyutbiaAhwinona 

Nome Eskimo Communio/ 

EASTERN OKLAHOMA 

s,JooC'ritteuden 

ClieT'(J/{ffNatlort 

GREATPLA!NS 

RobertSbephe:td 

S/sgetonWa!lpelOn 

MIDweST 

MatthewWesaw 

PoJw;ganBandof~i 

NORTHEAST 

lanceGlUrtbs 

Shinnewck lrnikm Natioo 

NORTHWEST 

FawuSharp 

Qumaalt indian Notion 

PACIFIC 

DQnAmoid 

Srot!:;VaIl'!V 8ando[Pomolndians 

ROCKY MOUNTAIN 

l~"""" Shoshanel'rlbe 

SOUTHEAST 

LarryTl,lwnsend 

Lwnbeerribe 

SOUTHERN PLAINS 

....... Th~ 

SacandFoxNation 

SOUTHWEST 

loeGarcia 

OhkqyOwlngeh 

WESTERN 

NedNl,lnis,Jr 

TahanoO'odoomNatirm 

EXECUTIVEDJREtTOR 

Jacqueline Johnson Pata 

Tlingir 

NCAI HEADQUARTERS 

1516 PStreet, NW. 

Washington, DC 20005 

202.166.7767 

2Q2.466.7797 fax 

www.ncaiQrg 

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS 

NCAl WRITTEN TESTIMONY TO 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON 

APPROPRIATIONS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR 

FISCAL YEAR 2014 

On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), thank you for the 

opportunity to provide testimony about our views on proposed funding for U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (Native American Housing Block 

Grant; Title VI Loans Program Account; Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Fund; and 

Indian Community Development Block Grant ); and the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (Tribal Transportation Program; Tribal Technical Assistance 

Programs; Public Transportation on Indian Reservations; Highway Traffic Safety 

Grant) in the President's FY 2014 budget request. NCAI is the oldest and largest 

national organization in the United States and is steadfastly dedicated to protecting the 

rights of tribal governments and advancing the welfare ofIndian people. 

Infrastructure development is critical to economic development, recovery, creating 

jobs, and improving living conditions for individuals and families in Indian Country. 

NCAI is aware of the challenging budgetary constraints that Congress faces. NCAI 

applauds the Administration's many proposals for FY 2014 to continue to make 

investments in Indian Country. NCAI looks forward to working with members of this 

Appropriations Subcommittee to enhance investments in infrastructure development 

such as housing and transportation. 

Infrastructure development is a necessary link to provide stability for and safety to 

tribal families. Tribes have increased capacity to address the disturbing housing and 

infrastructure conditions in Indian Country through developing and managing their 

own programs and in many cases leveraging Department of Housing and Urban 

Development funding. In addition, building a transportation infrastructure system that 

allows for safe travel and promotes economic expansion will help us strengthen our 

tribal communities, while at the same time making valuable contributions to much of 

rural America. Surface transportation in Indian Country involves thousands of miles 

of roads, bridges, and highways. It connects and serves both tribal and non-tribal 

communities. 

HOUSING: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

Housing is continues to be a critical infrastructure for Indian tribal governments, while 

there has been some significant strides have been made in recent years, Indian tribes, 

Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian communities still continue face some of the most 

substandard and overcrowding housing conditions. 

The current authorization of the Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetennination Act of 2008 (NAHASDA) is set to expire in September 2013. This 

legislation authorizes Indian tribal governments to develop, construct and maintain 
626

,VAl THUD Bndrd PY 2011 

P age 

housing for its members, and has transfigured how federal housing assistance is made 

available to Native communities. The NAHASDA consolidates existing housing 

funds into a single block grant-the Indian Housing Block Grant-and enabled the 

role of 

Indian tribes to the design and implement tribal housing and other community development 

infrastructure programs. The NAHASDA has resulted in tens of thousands more housing units 

being constructed as well as increased tribal capacity to address related infrastructure and economic 

development challenges. 

The NAHASDA authorizes several programs and activities that are in dire need of additional 

funding. These include Indian Housing Block Grant; Indian Community Development Block Grant; 

Sections 184 and 184A Guaranteed Loan Program; Title VI Guaranteed Loan Program; 

NAHASDA's Training and Technical Assistance Funding; and Title VIII Housing Assistance for 

Native Hawaiians. 

The NCAI FY 2014 Indian Country Budget Request for Indian housing includes the following 

recommendations: 

• Fund the Indian Housing Block Grant (lHBG) at $650 million. 

• Fund the Indian Community Development Block Grant at $60 million. 

• Fund Title VI of the Native American Housing Assistance and Self Determination 

Act of 19% at $2 million. 

• Fund the Section 184 Program at $7 million. 

• Fund NAHASDA's Training and Technical Assistance at $2 million. 

• Fund Title VIII's Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant at $1 million. 

TRANSPORT A nON: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Transportation infrastructure development is critical to economic development, creating jobs, and 

improving living conditions for individuals and families in Indian Country, and the millions of 

Americans who travel through our reservations every day. Construction of transportation systems 

that allows for safe travel and promotes economic expansion will help us strengthen our tribal 

communities while at the same time making valuable contributions to much of rural America. 

Surface transportation in Indian Country involves thousands of miles of roads, bridges, and 

highways. It connects and serves both tribal and non-tribal communities. 

In July 2012, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century (MAP-21) was enacted into law, 

and this two-year bill authorized the transportation programs. MAP-21 reorganized the 

transportation programs for Indian tribal governments by establishing and consolidating the Tribal 

Transportation Program (formerly Indian Reservation Programs); and established a formula based 

distribution for the Public Transportation on Indian Reservation, the formula factors include vehicle 

revenue miles and the number of low-income individuals residing on tribal lands. 

In order for Indian tribal governments to be prosperous tribal nations, Indian tribal governments 

must build a transportation infrastructure that allows safe travel and promotes economic expansion. 

Transportation infrastructure is critical to connecting people within their tribal communities and to 

other surrounding area in strengthening greater economic development and improved delivery of 

tribal government services. Within the Tribal Transportation Program (TTP), there are over 
627

1 3 

160,000 miles of roads in Indian Country, and are owned by the BIA, Indian tribes, States and 

Counties. However, these roadways are still the most underdeveloped road network in the nation, 

even though it is the primary transportation way for aU residents of and visitors to American Indian 

and Alaska Native communities. 

Theses insufficient road conditions make it very difficult for tribal community residents to travel to 

hospitals, stores, schools, and employment centers. The poor condition of these roads, bridges and 

transit systems jeopardizes the health, safety, security and economic well-being of our Tribal 

members and the traveling public. Tribal roads and bridges are often in such disrepair that children 

are prevented from attending school, sick and injured people are prevented from reaching hospitals, 

and emergency responders are delayed in providing timely assistance to people in need. 

Tribal communities are vulnerable by unsafe and often inaccessible roads, bridges, and ferries, and 

suffer injury and death by driving and walking along reservation roadways at rates far above the 

national average.' Over the past 25 years, 5.962 fatal motor vehicle crashes occurred on Indian 

reservation roads, with 7,093 lives lost. While the number offatal crashes in the nation declined 2.2 

percent during this time period, the number of fatal motor vehicle crashes per year on Indian 

reservations increased 52.5 percent. II Adult motor vehicle-related death rates for American 

Indians/Alaska Natives are more than twice that of the general population.iiI 

MAP-2! brought major restructuring of transportation programs for Indian tribal governments it is 

still critical these transportation programs continue to assist tribal governments to be able to sustain 

and further develop their communities and economies. 

NeAl requests that the Subcommittee consider the following FY 2014 fundiug 

recommendations: 

• Fund the Tribal Transportation Program at $450 million. 

• Fnnd the Tribal Technical Assistance Programs (TTAPs) at $1 million. 

• Fund the Public Transportation on Indian Reservation (Tribal Transit Program) at 

$30 million. 

• Fnnd the Highway Traffic Safety Grant (Section 402) (which is administered as 

the Indian Highway Program by the Bureau of Indian Affairs) at $4.7 million 

; u.s. Department of Transportation. (2004). Pedestrian safety in Native America. Washington, DC: Author. 

;; u.S. Department of Trans po nation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Fatal motor vehicle 

crashes on Indian Reservations, 1975-2002. (2004, April). Washington, DC: Author. 

;;; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control. (n.d.)If!iuries among American 

Indians/Alaska Natives (AllAN): Fact Sheet.Retrieved November 13, 2009, from 

www.cdc.govlMotorVehicieSafetylnativelfactsheet.htmi. 
628

ASCE 

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVil ENGINEERS 

Statement of 

Washington Office 

101 Constitution Ave., N.W 

Suite 375 East 

Washington, D,C. 20001 

(202) 789-7850 

Fax: (202)789-7859 

Web http"llwww.asce.org 

The American Society of Civil Engineers 

On The Fiscal Year 2014 

Transportation Programs 

United States House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related 

Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

April 24, 2014 

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 1 is pleased to present to the Subcommittee our 

views on the proposed budget for the nation's transportation programs. 

ASCE's 2013 Report Card for America's Infrastructure graded the nation's infrastructure a "0+" 

based on 16 categories and found that the nation needs to invest approximately $3.6 trillion by 

2020 to maintain the national infrastructure in good condition. The following are the grades and 

the investment needs by 2020 for the surface transportation area: 

o Bridges received a grade of C+; 

o Transit received a 0; 

o Roads received a grade of 0, and combined with bridges, and transit, have an 

estimated investment need of $1.7 trillion; and 

o Rail received a grade of C+ and has an estimated investment need of $100 

billion. 

While taken for granted by most Americans, our infrastructure is the foundation on which the 

national economy depends. As the economy grows, these infrastructure assets must be 

maintained and improved accordingly. While the Interstate Highway System is a shining 

example of a focused national vision for the nation's infrastructure, an ever expanding 

population and a growing economy requires these aging infrastructure systems to keep pace. 

In an effort to see how significant investments are to the nation's infrastructure, ASCE released 

a series of economic studies that answer a critical question - what does a "0+" mean for 

America's economy and what is the return on investment we can expect to see. The Failure to 

Act studies compare current and projected needs for infrastructure investment against the 

1 ASCE was founded in 1852 and is the country's oldest national civil engineering organization. It represents more 

than 146,000 civil engineers individually in private practice, government, industry, and academia who are dedicated 

to the advancement of the science and profession of civil engineering. ASCE is a non-profit educational and 

professional SOCiety organized under Part 1.501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. 
629

. AfT!~rican Society of Civil Engineers - page 2 

current funding trends in surface transportation (highways, bridges, rail, transit); water and 

wastewater; electricity; and airport and waterborne transportation. The series concluded with a 

final report, Failure to Act: The Impact of Current Infrastructure Investment on America's 

Economic Future, which found improving the condition of our nation's aging roads, bridges, 

power lines, sewer systems, ports and waterways is critical to protecting 3.5 million jobs. 

The final summary report found that between now and 2020, investment needs across key 

infrastructure sectors total $2.75 trillion, while projected expenditures are about $1.66 trillion, 

leaving a total investment gap of $1.1 trillion. This gap leads to consequences like congestion, 

water main breaks, and blackouts and brownouts that cost households and businesses money, 

creating a drag on our economy. However, with an additional investment of $157 billion a year 

between now and 2020, the U.S. can eliminate this drag on economic growth and protect: 

$3.1 trillion in GDP; 

• $1.1 trillion in U.S. trade value; 

3.5 million jobs; 

• $2.4 trillion in consumer spending; and 

• $3,100 in annual household income. 

In order to avoid the severe economic impacts that would be caused by failing to invest in our 

infrastructure at home, the federal government is allowing other countries to make up where the 

United States is failing. It is long established that money invested in essential public works can 

create jobs, provide for economic growth, and ensure public safety through a modern, wellengineered national infrastructure. By improving the nation's deteriorating infrastructure system 

both economic and job creation opportunities will be provided, while creating a multi-modal 

transportation system for the Twenty-First Century. 

Highways and Transit 

With the current surface transportation authorization (MAP-21) expiring next September, 

Congress will soon need to begin discussions on how to fund a new multi-year surface 

transportation authorization and more importantly how to make the Highway Trust Fund 

sustainable as a long-term revenue source. Therefore, due to the nation's growing surface 

transportation needs, Congress must first appropriate the funding levels that were authorized 

under MAP-21, while also tackling a way to provide a long-term, reliable, and sustainable 

approach toward fixing the Highway Trust Fund. 

A key reason for the current decline in transportation spending is the fact that federal revenues 

supporting the Highway Trust Fund have not been adjusted since 1993; however demands on 

the system have grown. As a result, current levels of highway and public transportation 

investment cannot be maintained solely with trust fund resources and Congress has had to rely 

on the General Fund to shore up resources. Currently, the Highway Trust Fund is allocating 

more than the revenues it receives, with the trust fund allocating $15 billion more in 2012 alone. 

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently prOjected that to prevent a massive shortfall 

for highway and transit spending in 2015, Congress will need to severely cut highway spending, 

transfer $14 billion to the Highway Trust Fund from the General Fund, raise the federal gas tax 

by about 10 cents per gallon, or implement some combination of the three. The current solution 

provided by the Obama Administration is to once again transfer funds from the General Fund, 

which is not a long-term solution for funding highway and transit programs. 

To reflect the growing imbalance between projected Highway Trust Fund (HTF) revenues and 

baseline spending, the House budget shows only the HTF funding that can be supported while 
630

American Society of Civil Engiflfters - page 3 

maintaining positive annual cash balances in the fund, The House budget also identifies the 

U,S. Department of Transportation as a department that offers "a number of areas where 

spending could be cut back responsibly." It goes on further to state that the federal formula for 

spending on surface transportation is "distorted, leading to imprudent, irresponsible and often 

downright wasteful spending.» A disconcerting proposal if the nation wants to repair our aging 

infrastructure and ensure freight mobility and economic growth in the upcoming decades. 

The proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Department of Transportation budget from the 

Administration contains no policy recommendations for how to provide a long-term, reliable, and 

sustainable approach to fixing the Highway Trust Fund; however the proposal does provide 

robust funding for surface transportation. Therefore, the plaguing problem with the HTF aside, 

ASCE is mostly pleased with the FY 2014 budget that was proposed by the Obama 

Administration, 

The budget reprises the administration's continued call for increased transportation funding, 

including the $50 billion in "immediate investments" he called for in his State of the Union 

speech, Overall the budget calls for $77 billion in total spending for the Department of 

Transportation in FY 14, a six percent increase over FY 12 levels, with highway funding set at 

$40,26 billion and transit receiving $10,9 billion, The funding level for highways and transit are 

both a slight increase from $39.69 provided for highways by the FY 13 Continuing Resolution 

and the $10,69 billion provided for transit. However, both the highway and transit funding levels 

proposed for FY 14 are consistent with the bipartisan agreements made in MAP-21 last 

summer. 

ASCE recommends that Congress appropriate the promised obligation limitations, set in 

last year's two year reauthorization of federal highway and public transportation 

programs, in FY 2014. Members of Congress worked tirelessly on a comprise last 

summer in order to reauthorize funding for the nation's surface transportation systems 

and the agreement that was reached is a step in the right direction for repairing and 

maintaining the nation's infrastructure. Going back on those levels so shortly after they 

were passed by Congress would put the economy, jobs, and public safety all at risk. 

Rail 

ASCE supports the development, construction and operation of an expanded passenger rail 

transportation system within the United States, including advanced technology high speed 

ground transportation (HSGT) systems, As regional and interCity transportation corridors in the 

United States become increasingly congested, investments in interCity passenger rail systems, 

including HSGT, are increasingly attractive as part of an overall transportation mobility strategy 

to provide added capacity and high quality service, 

The President's FY 2014 budget includes $40 billion for rail over the next five years, focused on 

creating new corridors and improving current networks, including Amtrak's, As part of the 

change, the budget once again proposes to move Amtrak out from under the annual 

appropriations cycle and instead allows for it to receive grants from a new trust fund system, 

The budget would restructure the current Highway Trust Fund by renaming it the Transportation 

Trust Fund and add a dedicated funding source for rail as part of that fund. However, as stated 

earlier the Highway Trust Fund is unable to remain solvent when funding just highways and rail, 

adding an additional source to be funded would only increase the burden for the struggling 

account. 
631

American Society of Civil Engineers - page 4 

For fiscal 2014, Amtrak would receive $2.7 billion, a large increase over last year's $1.3 billion 

appropriation. The budget would also allocate $6.6 billion to the Federal Rail Administration, 

another large increase from the $1.7 billion it received in Fiscal Year 2012. Finally, the 

President's budget also includes $3.7 billion to be used to develop new passenger rail corridors 

and to improve the nation's freight network by adding capacity and removing bottlenecks that 

lead to congestion. 

All together the investments that are proposed would continue to allow railroads to experience a 

competitive resurgence as both an energy-efficient freight transportation option and a viable 

city-ta-city passenger service. While both freight and passenger rail have been investing heavily 

in their tracks, bridges, and tunnels as well as adding new capacity for freight and passengers 

through private investment, there must still be a federal role in the nation's rail system moving 

forward. 

ASCE recommends that Congress appropriate $2.27 billion in FY 2014 for Amtrak's 

capital program, about $1.4 billion more than the FY 2013 amount ($904 million). 

Additionally, ASCE's 2013 Report Card for America's Infrastructure cites an $11 billion 

need for the nation's rail system; therefore ASCE also recommends that Congress meet 

the President's request of $6.6 billion for the Federal Rail Administration. 

Aviation 

Despite the effects of the recent recession, passenger air travel continues to rise, stretching the 

system's ability to meet the needs of the nation's economy. The Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) estimates that the national cost of airport congestion and delays was almost $22 billion in 

2012. If current federal funding levels are maintained, the FAA anticipates that the cost of 

congestion and delays to the economy will rise from $34 billion in 2020 to $63 billion by 2040. 

The FAA continues to plan and develop the Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen), which is intended to improve the efficiency and safety of air traffic flow into and out 

of airports. By improving the flow of air traffic, NextGen is expected to increase capacity of the 

air transportation system so that Mure growth can be accommodated while maintaining safety. 

However, FAA's capital investment in NextGen is anticipated to be over $11 billion by 2018, and 

full implementation of NextGen is projected to cost at least $32 billion by 2025. Therefore, 

ASCE supports the President's FY 14 budget request for $1 billion to continue to advance the 

implementation of NextGen technology. 

ASCE however is concerned with the President's request to provide $2.9 billion for the Airport 

Improvement Program (AlP). This funding level would represent a cut from the authorized level 

of $3.35 billion, by eliminating AlP funding for large Hub airports and allowing those airports to 

increase their Passenger Facility Charges (PFCs), if Congress approves, from the current $4.50 

up to $8 to fund airport construction. While ASCE supports increasing or even eliminating the 

cap on the Passenger Facilities Charges in order to allow airports the flexibility to invest in their 

own facilities, removing a" AlP funding for larger Hubs could work against a unified national 

system. ASCE recommends appropriating the $3.35 billion authorized level for the Airport 

Improvement Program, while also removing the cap for PFCs. 

Conclusion 

ASCE believe that the Administration's proposed budget reflects a reasonable level of funding 

but have concerns that continuing to operate with baseline levels will only allow us to maintain 

the inadequate conditions that our current surface transportation systems are under. Without 
632

~ ___________ ~ _____ ~American Society of Civil Engineers - page 5 

developing a long-term, reliable user fee approach for the Highway Trust Fund, surface 

transportation programs will continue to live under a cloud of uncertainty for the years to come 

and necessary improvements cannot be full addressed. A transportation system cannot run 

properly when it must rely on transfers from the General Fund, in order to remain solvent. 

Congress must take the lead in addressing this problem to ensure continuity in the nation's 

surface transportation program. In the long term, ASCE is pleased to see that the Administration 

continues to push the need to upgrade the nation's aging infrastructure or improve the safety 

and mitigate the congestion on our nation's roads. However, making a strong commitment to the 

nation's surface transportation system, without the proper funding does not solve our long term 

infrastructure needs. 

The longer Congress waits to properly fund surface transportation programs, the greater the 

problem will become. Inaction will lead to a further deterioration of the nation's surface 

transportation assets, a continuation of high levels of traffic fatalities and more wasted time and 

fuel due to increased congestion creating a further drag on the economy. Therefore, ASCE 

stands ready to work with Congress as it works to fund our nation's vital transportation assets. 
633

Written Testimony of the National Alliance to End Homelessness 

Steven R. Berg, Vice President for Programs and Policy 

House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, 

Housing, and Urban Development 

April 26, 2013 

The Department of Housing and Urban Development's Homeless Assistance programs are the 

largest single source of federal funding for communities' systems to combat homelessness. 

Since the advent ofthe Bush Administration's Chronic Homelessness Initiative in 2003 and the 

increases in this account requested by both the Bush and Obama Administrations, these 

programs have increasingly been focused on getting better results, leading to substantial 

declines in the number of people homeless nationally up until the start of the recession; and 

perhaps more impressively, holding off expected increases in homelessness since the recession 

began. But over the past three years, small increases in budget authority for this account have 

not been sufficient to allow communities to make substantial progress on their work to end 

homelessness in the face of economic difficulties. For fiscal year (FY) 2014, the Alliance 

requests that Congress invest the increased funding to get back on track to get the job done: 

$2.381 billion, as requested by the Administration. 

In FY 2013, McKinney-Vento was one of only two HUD accounts that received any increased 

funding, once the across-the-board cuts of "sequestration" were taken into account. Due to 

accounting issues related to expiring multi-year grants, however, the increase was insufficient 

to maintain spending levels for all communities at their FY 2012 level. The result will be more 

people homeless instead of housed. Simply put, communities need Congress to turn this 

around. These programs are worth investing in: 

• Spending on HUD's Homeless Assistance Grants is extremely effective. Work to end 

homelessness is solidly based on an interagency plan to achieve that result. The models 

are outcome-oriented and cost-effective. 

• These programs address the needs of people living in the worst possible situations, with 

the clear goal of quickly bringing them back into stable housing. 

• HUD's Homeless Assistance Grants programs have a strong history of bipartisan support 

dating back to the Bush Administration's FY 2003 budget request, which announced the 

goal of ending chronic homelessness and included a proposed substantial increase for 

HUD's homeless assistance. Congress under both Democratic and Republican control 

has increased funding for this account in past years. 

• The programs were recently reauthorized in bipartisan legislation, known as the 

HEARTH Act, that pushes even further in the direction of better outcomes and 

efficiency. HUD has now implemented the HEARTH Act, to the extent possible under 

current funding levels. (Congress has not come close to funding the HEARTH Act at its 

authorizing level of$2.2 billion for FY 2010.) 

1 
634

Now that sequestration and some of the larger battles around overall discretionary spending 

have quieted, it is time to return focus to the details and invest the small amount of money 

necessary to make. the plan to end homelessness a reality. Overall reductions in HUD funding 

over the past few years is already putting more pressure on communities' homelessness 

systems, making the need for fully funding the HEARTH Act more important than ever. 

Congress must work throughout the FY 2014 appropriations process to provide $2.381 billion 

for HUD's MCKinneY-Vento Homeless Assistance Grants, the amount requested by the 

President in his Budget Proposal, to ensure that we continue our progress in working toward 

the goals of preventing and ending homelessness in America. 

2 
635

Outside Witness Testimony - FY 2014 Appropriations 

Submitted by the National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies (John C. Murphy, 

Executive Director) for itself and on behalf of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National 

Community Development Association, Feeding America and YWCA USA 

Subcommittee: Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related 

Agencies 

Program and Agency: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment 

Partnerships (HOME) programs at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

April 26, 2013 

The Honorable Tom Latham, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and 

Urban Development and Independent Agencies 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Ed Pastor, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and 

Urban Development and Independent Agencies 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Latham and Ranking Member Pastor: 

The undersigned organizations oflocal elected officials and local affordable housing and 

community development practitioners and non-profit organizations that utilize CDBG funds 

write to you concerning FY 2014 appropriations for the Community Development Block Grant 

(CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships programs (HOME). Specifically, we wish to urge 

the Transportation and Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Subcommittee to reject 

recommendations contained within the Administration's FY 2014 budget recommending setasides and other "reforms" of these programs. 

Like other national organizations we urge you to support $3.3 billion in formula funding for the 

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. We also support HOME funding of 

$1.6 billion. 

However, we do not support the Administration's proposal to reduce overall CDBG formula 

funds by $275 million, for a $200 million Neighborhood Stabilization Program Initiative and $75 

million for Integrated Planning Grants (formerly known as the Sustainable Communities 

Initiative). These set-asides have the effect of transferring formula funds which benefit the many 

into two categorical grant programs that would benefit the few. Similarly, the HOME budget 

request contains an up to $10 million set-aside for the SHOP program. These set-asides are for 

activities that could be funded under the CDBG or HOME programs respectively. 

We also want to advise that we do not support the establishment of a minimum funding threshold 

for CDBG entitlement grants. This would adversely affect an estimated 340 smaller 
636

communities who are currently implementing programs that are responsive to their needs. This 

would force them to compete for limited state funds without any positive benefit to either them 

or the state. We also oppose the Administration's proposal to repeal the grandfathering 

provisions in CDBG for metropolitan cities and urban counties. Again, this would seriously 

disrupt on-going programs. 

Based on FY 2012 allocations (HUD has not released the FY 2013 allocations) in Iowa the City 

of West Des Moines would be denied direct funding because its allocation was $222,086. 

CDBG provides vital funding and flexibility to address local needs in the areas of community 

and economic development, housing, infrastructure and vital public services. Over 1,200 

communities rely on CDBG as a direct source of annual funding. Moreover, each year, an 

estimated 7,250 local governments nationally have access to CDBG funds reaching rural, urban, 

and suburban areas. CDBG helps create jobs through the expansion and retention of businesses. 

Since FY2010, funding for CDBG has been cut by over $1 billion, yet the need for these 

important resources has continued to grow. While we understand the need to address the federal 

budget deficit, we also understand the value of the local investments made by CDBG. We are 

deeply concerned that these investments are in jeopardy due to the Obama Administration's 

FY2014 proposed budget cuts to CDBG, funding the program at $2.8 billion. 

The CDBG program generates additional resources, and adds to the local economy. For 

example, for every $1.00 ofCDBG funding invested in a project another $3.55 is leveraged from 

other sources. Since its inception in 1974, CDBG has leveraged nearly $400 billion in other 

resources for community development and affordable housing. 

As a companion to the CDBG program, the HOME Investment Partnerships program has 

suffered severe cuts since FY 2010, from $1.8 billion then to $950 million in FY 2013, following 

sequestration. We urge you to appropriate $1.6 billion for CDBG in FY 2014. 

HOME serves as a critical source of funding for the expansion of affordable ownership and rental 

housing for low-and moderate-income households. The types of activities HOME assists are the 

construction and preservation of affordable rental housing usually as gap assistance, the 

construction and rehabilitation or affordable ownership housing as wells as for homeownership 

assistance and tenant-based rental assistance. Since HOME was enacted in 1990 it has produced 

over 1 million affordable homes, including 612,792 homeownership new construction and 

rehabilitation units and 423,154 new construction or preservation of rental units. Every dollar of 

HOME funds leverages an additional $4 in non-HOME funds. 

The Administration's FY 2014 budget proposes funding for HOME at the $950 million finally 

approved for FY 2013. It is estimated that this will decrease production of HOME units by 

34,000 units and result in the loss of an estimated 8,935 jobs. 

Thus, we urge you to support our recommendation of$3.3 billion for CDBG formula grants and 

$1.6 billion for HOME in FY2014 to help communities nationwide continue to provide vital 

affordable housing and neighborhood revitalization programs and services to low-income 

persons. 

Respectfully, 

National Association of Local Housing Rinl1.llC€, Agencies 
637

U.S. Conference of Mayors 

National Community Development Association 

Feeding America 

YWCA USA 
638

INTERESTED PARTIES FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION 

April 26, 2013 

The Honorable Tom Latham 

Chairman 

THUD Subcommittee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Ed Pastor 

Ranking Member 

THUD Subcommittee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

RE: FY 2014 PHMSA Budget Request 

Dear Chairman latham and Ranking Member Pastor: 

The undersigned industry associations represent all sectors of the economy engaged in the 

transportation of hazardous materials which are essential to Americans' quality of life. We are 

writing to alert you to our concerns with the Administration's proposed $12 million user fees to 

be paid by applicants for special permits and approvals (SP / A) issued by the Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). This fee proposal, with charges ranging 

from $700 to $3,000 per application, is identical to the user fee the Administration proposed in 

FY 2013. Congress wisely rejected this proposal last year, and we urge you to once again reject 

this initiative in order to protect American jobs and promote innovation. 

PHMSA states that it needs the user fees to support its oversight of the new conditions it has 

imposed on SP / A applicants. However, the user fee proposal is without merit: 

• Currently, about 35 full-time equivalents (HE) are dedicated to the SP/A program. $12 

million would support a staff of 66 FTEs. PHMSA has inflated the costs of this program by 

about 50%. 

• The SP / A workload is decreasing. For example, applicants for classification approvals are no 

longer scrutinized for "fitness" and special permits in effect over ten years are being 

incorporated into the HMR. 

• The excess user fee revenue would be used to underwrite the agency's general fund, 

although only a fraction of the regulated community are holders of special permits and 

approvals. 

• No death has been attributed to special permits or approvals since 1971 when agency records 

began to be kept.' 

1 PHMSA claims that a maritime incident in 2008 which resulted in three deaths was caused by the violation of a special permit. However, the 

deaths were not the proximate result of a special permit violation. Testimony in the resultant litigation showed the deaths were due to 

negligence of a number of parties involved in the shipment. 

1120 Nineteenth Street, N. W., 5uite 310, Washington, DC 20036-3605, Tel: (202) 429-9280 
639

• The government, not private companies, is the largest holder of approvals and special 

permits. The government will pay no fees. 

• Historically, fees have not been imposed on foreign entities for fear of retaliatory fees on US 

exports giving foreign shippers a competitive advantage in the U.S. 

• Part ofthe revenue will have to be used to hire additional federal workers to administer and 

collect the fees. 

• It is the business activity, not the size, of a company that determines how many applications 

may be filed. Many payers will be small businesses. 

2 

• Despite statements that PHMSA is accelerating incorporation of special permits into the HMR, 

no new resources are requested to support this rulemaking activity. 

• The fees would be payable per application, meaning that any application returned for corrections 

and re-filing would result in unfair redundant fee payments. 

• Other DOT modal administrations issue approvals or what amount to special permits; none 

assess fees. 

This program, which provides safety benefits to the public and facilitates technical innovations 

important to our economy, has been successfully run for decades without user fees. PHMSA's 

proposal could be the start of a trend for user fees for other regulatory actions including letters 

of interpretation or petitions for rulemaking necessary for compliance and good government. 

PHMSA's user fees are not fair or equitable but are a hidden tax on companies that innovate 

and produce goods needed to strengthen and rebuild the US economy. Congress should again 

reject this initiative. 

Respectfully, 

Agricultural Retailers Association 

American Chemistry Council 

American Coatings Association 

American Petroleum Institute 

American Pyrotechnics Association 

American Trucking Associations 

Association of Hazmat Shippers, Inc. 

The Chlorine Institute, Inc. 

Compressed Gas Association 

Council on Safe Transportation of 

Hazardous Articles 

Dangerous Goods Advisory Council 

The Fertilizer Institute 

Gases and Welding Distributors Association 

Industrial Packaging Alliance of North America 

Institute of Makers of Explosives 

International Vessel Operators Dangerous 

Goods Association, Inc. 

National Association of Chemical Distributors 

National Association of Shell Marketers 

The National Industrial Transportation league 

National Private Truck Council 
640

National Propane Gas Association 

National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. 

New England Fuel Institute 

Petroleum Marketers Association of America 

Radiopharmaceutical Shippers & Carriers 

Conference 

Railway Supply Institute, Inc. 

PRBA-The Rechargeable Battery Association 

3 

Reusable Industrial Packaging Association 

Sporting Arms & Ammunition Manufacturers' 

Institute 

Steel Shipping Container Institute 

Transportation Intermediaries Association 

Truckload Carriers Association 

Utility Solid Waste Activities Group 
641

CONSOR11UM FOR CmZENS 

WITH DISABIU11ES 

Commemorating 40 Years 

Of Disability Advocacy 

1973-2013 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW SPERLING AND T J. SUTCLIFFE 

CO-CHAIRS, CONSORTIUM FOR cmZENS WITH DISABILITIES (CCD) HOUSING TASK FORCE 

TO THE TRANSPORTATION-HUD SUBCOMMmEE, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON BEHALF OF THE CCD HOUSING TASK FORCE 

REGARDING FY 2014 FUNDING FOR THE HUD SECTION 811 PROGRAM 

APRIL 26, 2013 

Chairman Latham, Representative Pastor and members of the Subcommittee, we are pleased to 

submit the following statement on behalf of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) 

Housing Task Force. CCD is a working coalition of national consumer, advocacy, provider, and 

professional organizations working together with and on behalf of the 57 million children and 

adults with disabilities and their families living in the United States. The CCD Housing Task 

Force advocates on behalf of the housing needs of people with a variety of disabilities, including 

developmental disabilities, mental illness, sensory disabilities, physical disabilities, and 

intellectual disabilities. On behalf of the CCD Housing Task Force, we urge the Subcommittee to 

reject the President's proposed cut to the Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD) Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities program, and to restore 

program funding to $165 million for FY 2014. 

FY 2014 Request for the HUD Section 811 Program 

The President's budget proposes a deep cut to the HUD Section 811 Supportive Housing for 

Persons with Disabilities program for FY 2014. Section 811 is a critical source of funding for 

permanent supportive housing (PSH) for non-elderly adults with significant disabilities. The 

budget proposes a $40 million reduction, dropping funding to $126.2 million, from its current 

FY 2013 level of $165 million; this includes $106 million needed to renew existing Project-Based 

Rental Assistance Contracts for FY 2014. 

Specifically, only $20 million is proposed for 

development of new PSH units under the 

new and highly cost-effective Section 811 

Project-Based Rental Assistance (PRA) 

Demonstration program. This represents a 

76% reduction in the innovative, flexible 

Section 811 option targeted by Congress to 

assist states struggling to address the 

community-based housing needs of the 

Section 811 PRA Demonstration Program 

Funding 

New Units 

FY2014 

FY 2012 FY 2013 President's 

$98 M* 

3,530 

$60M 

2,000 

Proposed 

$20M 

700 

"'Includes an $85 million appropriation plus approximately 

$13 million in reallocation of prior years' unobligated funds, 

1825 K Street, NW, Suite 1200. Washington, DC 20006. PH 202·783-2229. FAX 202-783-8250. Info@c-c-d.org.www.c-c-d.org 
642

most vulnerable non-elderly adults with significant disabilities. 

HUD 811 PRA Demonstration Program - A Record of Enormous Success in FY 2012 and FY 

2013 

This proposal is in marked contrast to funding that Congress made available in FY 2012 and FY 

2013 for the HUD Section 811 PRA Demonstration program, authorized under the bipartisan 

Frank Melville Supportive Housing Investment Act of 2010. 

The Section 811 PRA Demonstration assists the lowest income people with significant and longterm disabilities to live independently in the community by providing affordable housing linked 

with voluntary services and supports. The PRA Demonstration provides project-based rental 

assistance to help state governments systematically and efficiently create integrated and highly 

cost-effective PSH units within affordable rental housing developments. Section 811 PRA units 

are projected to cost significantly less than traditional Section 811 units, and will leverage the 

development of significantly more additional units of PSH each year. 

In FY 2012 Congress made $8S million available for the first year of the Section 811 PRA 

Demonstration. With a reallocation of unobligated funds from previous years, this amount was 

boosted to $98 million. On February 13, HUD and the Department of Health and Human 

Services - with significant fanfare - jointly announced awards to 13 states to create 3,530 units 

of new PSH units. A total of 35 states and D.C. applied for these funds - demonstrating the 

extraordinary demand for new PSH for people currently living in costly institutional settings (Le. 

nursing homes, board and care homes, etc.) and people who are chronically homelessness. 

For FY 2013, the Continuing Resolution recently passed by Congress allocates $165 million for 

Section 811 (minus the 5% sequester of approximately $8.3 million). HUD projects that $60 

million will be available for a FY 2013 competition for new Section 811 PRA units - enough to 

fund as many as 2,000 new PSH units. Thus, in FY 2012 and FY 2013, the new 811 PRA 

Demonstration will produce 5,530 new PSH units. By contrast, the "old" 811 capital advance 

program produced only 948 units of PSH in FY 2010 and FY 2011. 

Proposed Cut to HUD 811 PRA Demonstration - A Retreat from Community Integration for 

People with Disabilities and Ending Chronic Homelessness 

Across the nation, states are seeking new strategies to develop integrated housing 

opportunities that are consistent with the community integration mandates within the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Numerous states have federal Olmstead-related lawsuits 

and settlement agreements which require the creation of thousands of new integrated 

supportive housing units for people with disabilities who are leaving restrictive settings (Le. 

nursing homes, public institutions, etc.), are at risk of institutionalization, or who experience or 

are at risk of chronic homelessness. 

2 
643

The proposed cut for FY 2014 represents a significant retreat from the highly innovative, costeffective and flexible Section 811 Demonstration that had been embraced by the Obama 

Administration as a critical component of strategies to expand integrated PSH opportunities, to 

assist states comply with Olmstead-related cases and to prevent and end chronic homelessness. 

The HUD 811 PRA Demonstration is an important resource for the federal government to help 

states meet these obligations and goals. 

The CCD Housing Task Force urges this Subcommittee to reject this proposed cut to housing 

for people with disabilities and restore program funding to $165 million for FY 2014. 

Submitted on behalf of the CCD Housing Task Force: 

Andrew Sperling, National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) 

Co-Chair, CCD Housing Task Force 

TJ. Sutcliffe, The Arc ofthe United States 

Co-Chair, CCD Housing Task Force 

3 
644

Testimony submitted by the National Council of State Housing Agencies, 444 North Capitol 

Street, NW, Suite 438, Washington, DC 20001. Contact: Mindy la Branche, legislative and 

Policy Associate 

Submitted on behalf of the following organizations: Council for Affordable and Rural Housing, 

Council of State Community Development Agencies, CSH, Enterprise Community Partners, 

Habitat for Humanity International, Housing Assistance Council, Housing Partnership Network, 

Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Mercy Housing, National Alliance of Community Economic 

Development Associations, National Association for County Community and Economic 

Development, National Association of Home Builders, National Association of Housing and 

Redevelopment Officials, National Association of local Housing Finance Agencies, National 

Community Development Association, National Council of State Housing Agencies, National 

Housing Conference, National leased Housing Association, National low Income Housing 

Coalition, National Rural Housing Coalition, Stewards of Affordable Housing for the Future, and 

The Community Builders, Inc. 

April 26, 2013 

The Honorable Tom latham 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing 

and Urban Development, and Related 

Agencies 

2217 Rayburn House Office Building 

U.S. House 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Ed Pastor 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing 

and Urban Development, and Related 

Agencies 

2465 Rayburn House Office Building 

U.S. House 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman latham and Ranking Member Pastor: 

We appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony in support of HUD's HOME Investment 

Partnerships (HOME) program. HOME program funding is vital to the production and provision 

of housing affordable to low-income families. Yet, HOME has received devastating cuts-cut 

almost in half in just the past few years. To begin restoring funds for HOME, we implore you to 

fund HOME in FY 2014 at $1.6 billion, equal to its FY 2011 funding level. We ask that you resist 

additional, disproportionate cuts to HOME and recognize both the successful track record of 

the program and the need for its continued funding at a time when our housing market, and 

broader economy, continues to struggle and the need for affordable housing continues to grow. 

We thank you for your work in FY 2013 to begin restoring HOME funding and greatly appreciate 

the House's bipartisan support last year for funding HOME at $1.2 billion in its FY 2013 

Transportation-HUD appropriations bill, H.R. 5972. 

However, just since FY 2011, HOME has been cut by 41 percent from $1.6 billion to an 

estimated post-sequester level of $948 million in FY 2013. Cuts to the HOME program are 

being felt deeply across the country. For example, the HOME funding allocation to the state of 
645

Iowa has decreased by 42 percent, from $15.2 million in FY 2010 to $8.8 million in FY 2012, and 

the allocation to the state of Arizona has fallen 41 percent, from $26 million in FY 2010 to $15.2 

million in FY 2012. 

Authorized in 1990, the HOME program provides grants to state and local governments to 

produce affordable housing for low-income families. HOME funds are a vital and unique source 

of financing for numerous affordable housing developments-many of which would not be 

possible without HOME assistance. States and localities use HOME for affordable housing 

production and rehabilitation, preservation, and rental and homeownership assistance. 

By flexibly working with and supporting many critical federal housing programs, including the 

low Income Housing Tax Credit and rural housing programs, HOME uniquely empowers states 

and localities to respond to the housing needs they judge most pressing. States and localities 

use HOME to serve the whole spectrum of housing need, from homeless to ownership to 

disaster recovery, from urban to rural areas, and all low-income populations, including families 

with children, the elderly, veterans, and persons with special needs. HOME also enables forprofit and nonprofit developers to provide affordable housing in their communities. 

In its 20 years of existence, the HOME program has successfully produced more than 1 million 

affordable homes, in addition to making homes affordable for hundreds of thousands of 

families with rental assistance. From 1992 to 2012, states and localities have used HOME funds 

to produce 460,692 home buyer homes, 423,154 rental homes, and 212,100 rehabilitated 

home buyer homes. Another 264,715 families have received rental assistance through the 

HOME program. States and localities leverage HOME funding by generating more than $4 in 

other private and public resources for every $1 of HOME. Over the program's lifetime, HOME 

funds have been used to leverage $100.2 billion in funds for affordable housing. 

HOME funding is used exclusively to create affordable housing for low-income households, 

those earning incomes of 80 percent or less of area median income (AMI). While the statute 

requires that at least 90 percent of families receiving rental assistance through HOME have 

incomes at 60 percent of AMI or less, almost 100 percent of those receiving tenant-based rental 

assistance and 97 percent of families living in HOME-assisted rental units have incomes of 60 

percent of AMI or less. One out of four families helped with HOME are extremely lOW-income, 

with incomes of 30 percent of AMI or less. 

In addition to providing needed affordable housing, HOME funds contribute to job creation, 

especially in the hard-hit construction sector. Every $1 billion in HOME creates or protects 

approximately 18,000 jobs. Restoring funding to $1.6 billion in FY 2014 would create 11,736 

more jobs than created by HOME's FY 2013 funding level. 

Based on projected production levels included in HUD's FY 2014 Budget request, if HOME is 

funded in FY 2014 at the Administration's proposed level of $950 million, we expect almost 

34,000 fewer affordable homes will be produced in FY 2014 than were produced in FY 2011. 

2 
646

This means fewer home buyer and rental units, fewer homeowner rehabilitation projects, and 

fewer tenants assisted. 

As we face decreased investment in the production of affordable housing, we face a continued 

growing need for it. According to HUD's latest Worst Case Housing Needs report, in 2011 nearly 

8.5 million very low-income families-who received no government housing assistance-paid 

more than half their monthly income for rent, lived in severely substandard housing, or both. 

This number is up 2.6 million, or 43.5 percent, since 2007. 

Today, there are only 57 affordable rental homes available for every 100 very low-income 

renter households, those earning SO percent of AMI or less. For the 10.1 million households 

with extremely low incomes, there are only 30 affordable homes available for every 100 

households. Only one in four households eligible for federal rental housing assistance receives 

it. 

As a capital program, HOME is a vital resource for addressing this growing housing need. HOME 

funds produce new units of affordable housing and thus are necessary to increasing the overall 

supply of affordable housing. The Bipartisan Policy Center's Housing Commission in its recent 

report entitled Housing America's Future: New Directions for National Policy, called for an 

increase in HOME appropriations to serve as the gap financing needed to support new 

developments that would expand the supply of affordable rental housing. 

A HOME program appropriation of $1.6 billion in FY 2014 would only go partway towards 

restoring HOME program funding, but it would provide states and local communities with the 

critical resources needed to help address the spectrum of affordable housing needs they face. 

Therefore, we urge you to support the proven outcomes of the HOME program by providing an 

FY 2014 appropriation of $1.6 billion. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on the need for 

HOME funding. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Council for Affordable and Rural Housing 

Council of State Community Development Agencies 

CSH 

Enterprise Community Partners 

Habitat for Humanity International 

Housing Assistance Council 

Housing Partnership Network 

local Initiatives Support Corporation 

Mercy Housing 

National Alliance of Community Economic Development Associations 

National Association for County Community and Economic Development 

National Association of Home Builders 

3 
647

National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials 

National Association of local Housing Finance Agencies 

National Community Development Association 

National Council of State Housing Agencies 

National Housing Conference 

National leased Housing Association 

National low Income Housing Coalition 

National Rural Housing Coalition 

Stewards of Affordable Housing for the Future 

The Community Builders, Inc. 

4 
648

Outside witness testimony submitted by Mindy La Branche, Legislative and Policy 

Associate, on behalf of the National Council of State Housing Agencies (NCSHA) 

&a 

NCSHA 

National Council of 

State Housing Agencies 

Statement of the National Council of State Housing Agencies 

to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban 

Development, and Related Agencies 

on FY 2014 HUD Appropriations 

April 26, 2013 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of our Housing 

Finance Agency (HFA) members regarding FY 2014 appropriations for HUD programs. 

As you consider your FY 2014 HUD appropriations bill, we urge you to restore HOME 

formula grant funding to $1.6 billion, equal to its FY 2011 funding level, and provide 

Section 8 funding adequate to renew all expiring project-based contracts for a full year, 

fully fund all authorized Housing Choice Vouchers (vouchers), provide new 

incremental vouchers in FY 2014, allocate new flexible rental assistance to state HFAs, 

and ensure that successful HFA voucher and project-based contract administrators 

continue in and are adequately compensated for these roles. We also ask you to 

provide authority for Ginnie Mae to securitize FHA-HFA Multifamily Risk-Sharing 

program loans. 

The National Council of State Housing Agencies' (NCSHA) members are the 

HFAs of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, New York City, Puerto Rico, and the 

u.s. Virgin Islands. HF As administer a wide range of affordable housing and 

community development programs, including HOME, Section 8, homelessness 

assistance, down payment assistance, state housing trust funds, tax-exempt Housing 

Bonds, and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (Housing Credit). HF As effectively 

employ these resources to advance their common public-purpose mission of providing 

affordable housing to the people of their jurisdictions who need it. 
649

HOME Investment Partnerships Pro~ram 

HOME program funding is vital to the production and provision of housing 

affordable' to low-income families and has a long record of tremendous success in doing 

so. Yet, HOME has received devastating cuts in recent years. HOME has been cut 

almost in half since FY 2010. Just since FY 2011, HOME funding has been cut by 41 

percent-from $1.6 billion to an estimated post-sequester level of $948 million in FY 

2013. This is the lowest funding level in the program's 20-year history. We appeal to 

you to spare the HOME program from further cuts and to fund HOME at $1.6 billion, 

equal to its FY 2011 funding level. The need for HOME funding vastly exceeds the 

amount available. 

We also request that the Subcommittee resist further reducing the amount of this 

flexible funding source going directly to states and localities by not including any setasides within the HOME program account. 

We thank you for your work in FY 2013 to begin restoring HOME funding and 

greatly appreciate the House's bipartisan support last year for funding HOME at $1.2 

billion in its FY 2013 Transportation-HUD appropriations bill, H.R. 5972. 

In these tight budgetary times, the HOME formula grant is one of the best 

housing investments Congress can make. HOME's flexibility allows states and 

localities to determine how to put limited HOME funds to their best use. HFAs use 

HOME to serve the whole spectrum of housing need, from homeless to ownership to 

disaster recovery, from urban to rural areas, and all low-income populations, including 

families with children, the elderly, veterans, and persons with special needs. HOME 

funding is necessary to help states and localities respond to urgent housing needs. 

HOME funds must be used to assist families with low incomes, those earning 80 

percent of area median income (AMI) or less. State HFAs report using more than half of 

their HOME funds in 2011 to assist very low-income families, those earning 50 percent 

of AMI or less, and more than a quarter of the funds to assist extremely low-income 

families, those earning 30 percent of AMI or less. 

HOME has an outstanding track record of success. States and localities have 

used HOME funding to produce more than 1 million affordable homes, in addition to 

making homes affordable for hundreds of thousands of families with direct rental 

assistance. 

2 
650

Further, every federal HOME dollar generates more than four dollars in 

additional public and private investment. HOME funds have leveraged more than $100 

billion in additional funds for affordable housing. HOME funding is a vital piece in 

financing numerous affordable housing developments-many of which would not be 

able to move forward without its assistance. HOME complements and supports many 

critical federal housing programs, such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, making 

developments financially feasible and achieving deeper income targeting than would 

otherwise be possible. 

NCSHA also supports the state-administered Housing Trust Fund and seeks a 

dedicated and sustainable funding source for it. However, the Housing Trust Fund is 

needed as a new resource for developing housing affordable to those with very lowand extremely low-incomes. It is not a replacement for appropriations to HOME and 

other HUD programs and should not be funded at their expense. 

Rental Assistance 

We recommend Congress provide adequate funding for vouchers and projectbased Section 8 contracts. These two programs serve some of our lowest income, most 

vulnerable people. We urge the Subcommittee to ensure the Section 8 accounts are 

funded such that all vouchers already in use are renewed and all contract renewals are 

funded for a full 12 months in order to maintain owner confidence in the program. 

We also ask that you provide the funding necessary for public housing agencies 

(PHAs) to effectively administer the voucher program. PHAs have experienced yearover-year proration of administrative fees, which has negatively impacted PHAs' ability 

to administer the voucher program. HFA voucher and project-based contract 

administrators play critical roles in prOviding rental assistance and we ask that you 

ensure that they are adequately compensated for them. 

Thank you for funding new incremental V ASH vouchers in FY 2013. However, 

additional new unrestricted incremental vouchers are needed so we can help some of 

the millions of families who qualify for rental assistance but do not receive it. 

According to HUD's most recent report on Worst Case Housing Needs, there was a 43.5 

percent increase from 2007 to 2011 in households with worst case housing needsdefined as very low-income renters not receiving government housing assistance who 

either pay more than half of their monthly income for rent, live in severely inadequate 

conditions, or both. 

3 
651

We urge you also to provide flexible rental assistance to state HFAs that they can 

use for either project-based or tenant-based rental assistance. Such funding would 

allow states to address their production and affordability needs most effectively and to 

serve more extremely low-income families by combining it with state-administered 

Housing Credit, Housing Bond, HOME, and other production resources. 

States consistently target their Housing Credit, Housing Bond, and HOME 

resources to households with incomes below the programs' statutory income limits. 

Yet, it is difficult-and sometimes impossible-to reach these households at a rent level 

they can afford without rental assistance. 

Ginnie Mae Securitization of Multifamily Risk-Sharing Loans 

We request that you provide authority for Ginnie Mae to securitize FHA-HFA 

Multifamily Risk-Sharing loans. Providing this authority will allow HFAs to reduce the 

cost of financing rental housing developments, making it possible to achieve lower 

rents and reach even lower income tenants. 

Under the FHA-HFA Risk-Sharing program, HFAs meeting rigorous financial 

standards are able to underwrite FHA multifamily loans in return for sharing the risk of 

any losses on those loans. This program has been very successful, with 26 HF As 

financing nearly 1,000 loans, totaling more than $5 billion in principal and supporting 

more than 101,000 affordable rental homes. 

If Ginnie Mae were to securitize FHA-HFA Risk-Sharing loans, HFAs predict the 

interest rate on the underlying mortgages could be reduced by as much as 200 basis 

points, or 2 percent. This rate reduction would lower rents and potentially reduce the 

need for and cost of other federal housing subsidies. This authority would not increase 

government spending. In fact, it would generate revenue for the federal government 

according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which estimates that allowing 

Ginnie Mae to securitize FHA-HFA Risk-Sharing loans would result in $20 million in 

mandatory savings over 10 years, or $2 million annually. 

We recognize the continued constrained fiscal environment in which you must 

craft your FY 2014 appropriations legislation. We urge you to consider the proven 

effectiveness of HOME and Section 8 rental assistance and the great unmet need for 

them, which has been further exacerbated in these difficult economic times, as you 

make your funding decisions. NCSHA appreciates this opportunity to offer a statement 

4 
652

on behalf of these programs and we are ready to assist you in any way we can as you 

move forward with the FY 2014 appropriations process. 

5 
653

Michael P. Melaniphy, President & CEO 

on behalf of 

THE AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION (APTA) 

TESTIMONY SUBMlTTED TO 

THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, 

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND RELATED AGENCIES 

On Fiscal Year 2014 Appropriations for the U.S. Department of Transportation 

April 26, 2013 

Introduction 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, on behalf of the American Public 

Transportation Association (APTA), I thank you for this opportunity to submit written testimony 

on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development Appropriations 

bill, as it relates to federal investment in public transportation and high-speed and intercity 

passenger rail. 

With the passage of a new, two-year surface transportation authorization bill - Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21 st Century (MAP-21) Act - APTA's focus shifted from reauthorization 

legislation to ensuring the authorized programs are adequately funded. Federal investment in 

infrastructure is necessary for a variety of reasons, all of which lead back to supporting the 

economy and domestic job creation. Funding from the federal government leverages state and 

local resources and allows local governments and transit agencies to access capital markets, 

providing the resources necessary to build, replace and repair infrastructure. 

Americans took 10.5 billion trips in 2012, the second highest ridership since 1957, and 154 

million more trips than the prior year. This was the seventh year in a row that more than 10 

billion trips were taken on public transportation systems nationwide. And these ridership levels 

were achieved despite the impact that Superstorm Sandy had on transit service in the Northeast. 

With demand for transit only growing, investments will continue to be required to get people to 

school, work and play, and in turn, provide jobs in construction, maintenance, and all the related 

industries required to support public transportation. 

About APTA 

APTA is a nonprofit international association of 1,500 public and private member organizations, 

including transit systems and high-speed, intercity and commuter rail operators; planning, 

design, construction, and finance firms; product and service providers; academic institutions; 

transit associations and state departments of transportation. 

Overview ofFY 2014 Funding Requests 

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century Act (MAP-21) authorizes $10.695 billion for 

the Federal Transit Administration's (FTA) programs and expenses, with $8.595 billion of that 

provided from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund - which is financed with 

public transportation's share of federal motor fuel tax revenues. The remaining $2.3 billion, 
654

used to fund New Starts, Research, TCRP, Technical Assistance, FTA Administration, and a 

handful of additional programs, must be appropriated from General Fund revenues. Given the 

current state of infrastructure and the upward trend in demand for public transportation services, 

APTA urges Congress to appropriate full funding to each program as authorized under MAP-21. 

Beyond FT A appropriations, we again urge Congress to appropriate funding for the Rail Safety 

Technology Grants program (Section 105) of the Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA), to assist 

with the implementation of congressionally mandated positive train control systems. The federal 

deadline for implementation of positive train control systems is rapidly approaching, and to date, 

Congress has not provided the necessary funding to support implementation of this important 

safety program for commuter railroads. 

MAP-21 and the Continuing Need for Federal Transit Investment 

The new surface transportation law, MAP-21, provided a needed respite from years of 

authorization extensions, combined with appropriations continuing resolutions that resulted in 

significant funding uncertainty among transit agencies. Public transportation systems and 

projects require long-term funding certainty in order to plan major capital projects and procure 

assets such as rail cars, buses and facilities. While the 27 months of authority have helped to 

stabilize the situation, MAP-2l provided for only modest growth after years of essentially flat 

funding. The investment levels included in the bill were far from what is required to bring our 

systems into a state of good repair, much less to expand service to meet growing demands. In 

previous testimony to this subcommittee, APTA has cited U.S. Department of Transportation 

estimates that a one-time investment of $78 billion is needed to bring currently operating transit 

infrastructure up to a state of good repair, and this does not include annual costs to maintain, 

expand or operate the existing system. Research on transit needs shows that capital investment 

from all sources - federal, state, and local - should be doubled if we are to prepare for future 

ridership demands. The Administration's $50 billion proposal would go a long way towards 

accomplishing our state of good repair objectives. 

In their 2013 Report Card for America's Infrastructure released recently, the American Society 

of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gave the U.S. public transportation infrastructure a "D" grade for the 

nation's lack of investment. This grade drives home a sense of urgency for our nation to focus 

on increased investment in public transportation. The rating is virtually unchanged from four 

years ago, which was the last time ASCE examined the state of America's infrastructure. The 

"Failure to Act" report also emphasizes that the American economy lost $90 billion in 2010 due 

to the lack of investment in public transportation. The report also shows that, despite ridership 

gains and a clear and increasing demand for public transportation service, 45 percent of 

Americans still lack access to public transit in their communities. 

It is important to stress that the demand for public transportation and the need for federal 

leadership will not diminish in the months and years ahead. Public transportation is a vital 

component of the nation's total transportation infrastructure picture, and with ridership projected 

to grow, dependable public transportation systems will be vital to the transportation needs of 

millions of Americans. We must make significant, long-term investments in public transportation 

or we will leave Americans with limited transportation options, and in many cases, stranded 

without travel options. While Congress continues to consider how to proceed on a well-funded, 

multi-modal surface transportation bill, it remains critically important that annual appropriations 

bills address both current and growing needs. 

2 
655

Federal Transit Administration Programs 

Fonnula Grant Programs - As the core fonnula grant programs (Urban, Rural, State of Good 

Repair, and others) are funded from the Mass Transit Account in the Highway Trust Fund, 

APTA wishes to emphasize the importance of fully funding MAP-21 programs at the authorized 

levels. The fonnula programs are the backbone of the entire public transportation program and 

provide the vast majority of funding to localities across the nation. Transit agencies across the 

country are depending on full funding for these FT A programs in order to work towards a state 

of good repair and to provide safe and timely service. 

However, while many of APTA's recommendations for a new authorization bill were adopted in 

MAP-21, our members remain concerned about the reduction of funding for, and the complete 

fonnularization of the Bus and Bus Facilities Program. While we recognize the political 

atmosphere under which Congress sought to direct most funding into fonnula programs, the 

discretionary program in SAFETEA-LU and prior authorizations pennitted agencies who 

received discretionary grants to better address their "lumpy" capital needs - facility construction 

or bus acquisitions - that often do not come up as frequently as would be fitting for a purely 

fonnula-based program. APT A and its members will look to the next authorization bill for 

solutions that better address Bus and Bus Facilities funding and the method for delivering that 

funding. 

Capital Investment Grants (New Starts) - The New Starts program is the primary source of 

federal investment in the construction or expansion of heavy rail, light rail, commuter rail, bus 

rapid transit and ferryboat projects. Across the country, demand for federal assistance continues 

to outweigh currently authorized funding and resources, and New Starts funding is more 

important than ever with the expanded eligibility for Core Capacity projects. Unlike the core 

FT A fonnula programs, the New Starts program is funded from the General Fund, not the Mass 

Transit Account of the Federal Highway Trust Fund. The program as refonned by MAP-21 

includes a streamlined approval process, but even with the refonns, projects will continue to face 

the most robust federal review process of any federal infrastructure investment program and 

authorized funding remains short of demand. APT A asks Congress to appropriate funding for 

the New Starts program at or above the MAP-2l authorized levels. 

Transit Researchffransit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)ffechnical Assistance and 

Standards Development - APT A strongly urges the committee to fully fund the Research, 

Development, Demonstration, and Deployment Program, the Transit Cooperative Research 

Program (TCRP), Technical Assistance and Standards Development, and Workforce 

Development at the authorized levels, or at a minimum at the requested levels in the 

Administration's FY 2014 Budget. 

In particular, APTA urges Congress to recognize the great value and benefits represented in the 

TCRP. The TCRP is an applied research program that provides solutions to practical problems 

faced by transit operators. Over the TCRP's 20 years of existence, it has produced more than 

500 publications/products on a wide variety of issues of importance to the transit community. 

TCRP research has produced a variety of transit vehicle and infrastructure standards and 

specifications, as well as a variety of handbooks addressing many relevant subject areas of 

interest to the transit community. TCRP generates significant benefits and large economic 

returns on investment, and it does this with a budget that is 1110,000 of the $57 billion 

governments spend annually on public transit services, and even an even smaller ratio when 

3 
656

compared with the total benefits that transit service improvements provide to users, communities 

and the economy. TCRP costs will be repaid many times over if the program produces even 

small cost savings, service quality improvements, ridership gains, increases in transport system 

efficiency, or additional economic development. . 

Federal Railroad Administration Programs 

As Congress begins to consider reauthorizations of the Rail Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) and 

the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA), there are two important programs 

APT A wishes to emphasize as priorities for the industry. 

Positive Train Control- A high priority for APTA within the programs of the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) is the adequate funding for implementation of Positive Train Control 

(PTC) through the Railroad Safety Technology Grants Program, Section \05 of RSIA. The 

RSTA requires that all passenger rail operators, as well as certain freight railroads, implement 

positive train control PTC systems by December 31, 2015. The cost of implementing PTC on 

public commuter railroads alone is estimated to exceed well over $2 billion, not including costs 

associated with acquiring the necessary radio spectrum or the subsequent software and operating 

expenses. APTA urges Congress to appropriate a minimum of $50 million, the annual 

authorization included under RSIA. APT A urges the Committee to direct these funds to 

commuter rail implementation of PTC, and to fund those systems that plan to implement before 

the deadline. 

As the installation of PTC on nearly 4,000 locomotives and passenger cars with control cabs, and 

8,000 track miles progresses, costs are beginning to mount. The total cost of implementation on 

commuter railroads is expected to far exceed initial estimates, with estimates doubled in some 

cases. Meanwhile, Congress has appropriated only $50 million of the $250 million that was 

authorized. A federally mandated deadline, coupled with virtually no federal funding is forcing 

agencies to commit extremely limited capital budgets to implement PTC. Commuter railroads 

that have begun to install PTC are facing difficult choices as some will have to defer critical 

safety sensitive infrastructure maintenance projects to pay for PTC. As a group, these railroads 

have worked in good faith to comply with the Act's requirements. Additional funding provided 

by Congress for the Railroad Safety Technology grants is fundamental to the industry's ability to 

implement PTC. 

High-Speed and Intercity Passenger Rail Investment APTA strongly supports continued 

investment in high-speed and intercity rail projects and services. The U.S. Census Bureau 

estimates that the U.S. population of our nation will grow by more than 100 million over the next 

40 years. Such increases will overwhelm America's aviation, road and existing rail transportation 

infrastructure. To accommodate the needs of an every-growing and highly mobile population, the 

United States must develop and continually expand a fully integrated multimodal high-speed and 

intercity passenger rail (HSIPR) system. Investing in infrastructure ensures the efficient 

movement of people and goods that is essential to continued economic growth and other national 

policy goals. High speed intercity passenger rail would ultimately serve both densely populated 

mega-regions as well as rural and small urban communities which will benefit from the increased 

transfer points and feeder services connecting with new high-speed rail corridors. 

Passenger rail projects are advancing in 32 states and the District of Columbia, with each project 

supporting economic growth by creating construction and manufacturing jobs for American 

4 
657

workers and attracting small businesses and new development that will generate domestic 

business growth. High-speed rail will create a revitalized domestic transportation industry 

supplying more products and services, with more dollars retained in our economy. 

Conclusion 

We thank the subcommittee for allowing us to share APTA's views on FY 2014 public 

transportation and high-speed and intercity rail appropriations issues. APT A looks forward to 

working with the Committee as it makes investment decisions about the public transportation 

program. 

5 
658

Statement of 

Ross B. Capon 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

National Association of Railroad Passengers 

Submitted to the 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, 

and Related Agencies 

The Honorable Tom Latham, Chairman 

Committee on Appropriations, U.S. House of Representatives 

* * * 

Fisca12014 Department of Transportation 

* * * 

April 26, 2013 

*** 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement. Thank you also for your work to 

insure the continuation of intercity passenger train service. 

We support the budget requests of the Administration and Amtrak and are pleased to note that 

they are consistent. Amtrak has requested $2.6 billion and the Administration's $6.7 billion 

request includes $2.7 billion for Amtrak. 

The major reason for the different numbers is that the Administration includes work beyond 

Amtrak - both high speed rail projects that might be operated by someone other than Amtrak 

and capital grants to states to upgrade routes that Amtrak uses or could use in the future. 

As we understand it, the Administration's request, which they submitted by function, is: 

• $2.7 billion for Current Passenger Rail Service, including: 

o $675 million for the Northeast Corridor 

o $300 million for state corridors 

o $800 million for Amtrak's long-distance routes 

o $925 million for National Assets 

• $3.7 billion for the Rail Service Improvement Program, including: 

o $3.25 billion for Passenger Corridors 

o $150 million for Congestion Mitigation (Freight and Passenger) 
659

o $190 million for Freight Capacity 

o $70 million for Planning 

We also would like to highlight $1 million for the continued work of the Next Generation 

Equipment Committee. -

Amtrak's $2.65 billion request includes: 

• $373 million for operations 

• $1,271 million for general capital 

• $75 million for Americans with Disabilities Act work 

• $356 million for badly needed rolling stock acquisitions 

• $196 million for "equipment lease buyouts funded in previous years by the u.s. 

Department of the Treasury" 

• $167 million for the Gateway Project to increase capacity, redundancy and resiliency 

between New York City and New Jersey (including new Portal Bridge over the 

Hackensack River) 

• $212 million for debt service 

Context: Demand for Train Travel is Growing 

Travel on aU US roads dropped 1.4 % or roughly 3.1 billion miles driven, in February 

2013 compared with February 2012, according to Federal Highway Administration data, 

while cumulative travel declined only 0.4 percent over the same period. 

Since June 2005, VMT on all US roads declined an estimated 8.75 percent, according to 

Advisor Perspectives researcher Doug Short. The correlation between gas prices and miles 

driven is actually rather weak. More relevant factors include the aging population (seniors 

moving to areas where they don't need to drive as much), continuing high unemployment, the 

increased ability to telecommute made possible by the Internet, and the increased availability 

of attractive and reliable public transportation (witness the growth of rail transit systems in 

such places as Denver, Dallas, Salt Lake City and Seattle). 

An April 2012 Frontier Group study notes, "From 2001 to 2009, the average annual number of 

vehicle-miles traveled by young people (16 to 34-year-olds) decreased from 10,300 miles to 

7,900 miles per capita-a drop of23 percent." 

Over that period, 16-to-35-year-olds took 24% more bicycle trips and were 16% more likely to 

walk to their destinations. And from 2000 to 2010, the share of those aged 14 to 34 without 

drivers' licenses grew by 5%. 

One issue, particularly among young people, is the ability to "stay connected," that is, to use 

their electronic devices on trains and transit. 

2 
660

Train Investments We Need 

The Northeast Corridor requires about $350 million a year in capital investment just to "stay 

in place." Investment was less than that in both 2011 and 2012, so track conditions got 

worse. Investment for essential capacity increases would be in addition to that $350 million. 

Roughly half of these investments address needs of the commuter rail agencies. Likewise, the 

Master Plan at $52 million is heavily oriented towards upgrading the existing tracks and 

infrastructure, roughly half of which is commuter oriented, based on their share ofNEC trainmiles. 

The Short Distance Trains outside the Northeast Corridor from October 1,2013, will be 

largely the financial responsibility of states. The administration's budget seeks $300 million 

for those corridors, primarily for rolling stock but also partly to help states in trouble make the 

transition without losing service. 

The Long Distance Trains provide increasingly valuable service as alternatives disappear from 

smaller markets. These trains are heavily used by people who get on and off at intennediate 

points. About one-third of trips are 501-999 miles, with a slightly larger proportion making 

trips over 1,000 miles and a slightly smaller proportion making trips 500 miles or less. 

From 1997 to 2012, ridership on Amtrak's long-distance trains rose almost 20% even though 

capacity was not increased. In an October 10,2012, release reporting on Fiscal 2012 results, 

Amtrak said "all 15 Amtrak long-distance routes experienced an increase in passengers 

resulting in their best combined ridership numbers in 19 years." 

In Fiscal 2012, the long-distance trains accounted for 43% of all Amtrak intercity passengermiles. (A passenger-mile is one passenger traveling one mile.) In 23 states, Amtrak's only 

service is provided by one or more long-distance trains. That number rises to 25 if one 

includes the Oklahoma City-Fort Worth Heartland Flyer which likely would not survive 

disappearance of the Texas Eagle. The two trains share facilities at Fort Worth and a 

substantial portion of Flyer passengers connect with the Eagle, thus elimination of the Eagle 

would substantially increase Flyer costs while reducing its revenues. 

The net cost of operations for the long-distance trains should be put in context with the huge 

capital needs of the Northeast Corridor (and other short corridors). 

• Long-distance, fully-allocated net cost declined from $597.7 million in FY 2011 to 

$591.0 million in FY 2012. 

• Fully-allocated figures vastly overstate what could be saved by eliminating services, 

since so many costs are fixed and-in the event of discontinuance of a route or 

routes-would simply be reassigned to surviving services. 

NARP believes policymakers should focus on expanding this service, not reducing it. 

1. Lengthen trains, increase frequencies and fill gaps in the national network, creating a 

comprehensive web of routes that provides convenient connectivity at major hubs; 

3 
661

2. Make track, signal and station improvements that decrease trip times and increase on 

time performance; and 

3. Procure high-performance, modern equipment suitable for overnight and longer distance 

trips. 

Polls: A DFM Research poll fmds strong support for Amtrak in three conservative districts: 

IL-13 in February (ChampaignlDecatur/etc.), MO-8 in March (includes Poplar Bluff), and the 

state of North Dakota in October 2012. 

65% [52% ofR's]: Amtrak funding should continue or increase; 

21% [31% ofR's]: Eliminate Amtrak funding. 

From the survey: "While the surveys were done at different time during the past five months, 

and often asked questions that were unique to the district, the one universal thread in all three 

districts is the strong level of support for Amtrak government funding, and the desire for 

additional options for passenger rail service in their cornmunities." 

Other notable findings include: 

By a 4-to-l ratio (72-17%), constituents under age 45 support keeping/increasing 

government funding of Amtrak, versus eliminating funding; the 55 percent positive 

gap is the highest among all age groups. Those over-age-65 show a 43 percent positive 

gap, and age 45-64 show a 35 percent positive gap. The gap refers to the difference 

between those who want to keep/increase funding as opposed to those who want to 

eliminate funding. 

• Women are more likely to support government funding of Amtrak, with a 50 percent 

positive gap (68-18% support level) than men, who have a 35 percent positive gap (62-

27% support level) 

• By a 3.5-to-1 ratio (69-21%), self-indentified Independents support keeping/increasing 

government funding. Democrats have a 70 percent positive gap (80-10% support 

level), and over 50 percent of self-identified Republicans show support for Amtrak 

funding. 

The train questions were asked for the United Transportation Union. The poll is at 

http://dfrnresearch. corn/Projects.html 

A September, 2012, national poll of 800 Americans done for Natural Resources Defense 

Council found: 

Majority wants more travel options and is aware that the transportation system needs 

major change 

58% would use transit more often, but it's not conveniently available 

64% believe their community would benefit from expanded rail or bus systems. 

4 
662

To reduce traffic congestion, 42% favor improving public transportation; 21 % favored 

development of less car-dependent communities; only 20% favored building 

more roads; 17% said "all of the above" or "not sure." 

Energy Efficiency 

Already, Amtrak is: 

• 41 % more energy efficient per passenger-mile than personal trucks; 

• 34% more than automobiles; 

• 17% more than commercial aviation. 

Commuter trains are 16% more energy efficient per passenger-mile than cars and 25% more 

energy efficient than personal trucks. 

(Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Transportation Energy Data Book. Edition 31[2012]) 

Even undercapitalized Amtrak is improving its energy efficiency with improved operating 

practices and higher load factors. Proper funding allowing Amtrak to modernize its fleet will 

further boost its energy advantage. Trains are the only form of transportation with a 

demonstrated ability to move large numbers of people long distances using only electricity. 

Already, Amtrak helps mitigate direct and indirect air pollution by: 

• Running electric locomotives on the Northeast Corridor and fuel-efficient diesels 

elsewhere 

• Removing tens of millions of passengers a year from highways 

• Encouraging denser development around many of its stations. 

• Adding to the attractiveness and cost-effectiveness of transit systems by serving 

passengers making connections and by sharing facilities 

Thank you for considering our views. 

National Association of Railroad Passengers 

505 Capitol Ct., NE, Suite 300; Washington, DC 20002-7706 

Phone 202-408-8362, FAX -8287 

Web: www.narprail.org; E-mails: narp@narprail.org: rcapon@narprail.org 

5 
663

TESTIMONY SUBMITTED TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, 

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 

Submitted by: Tory Gunsolley, President and CEO, Houston Housing Authority 

April 26, 2013 

As the subcommittee works to develop the fiscal year 2014 Transportation, Housing, and Urban 

Development and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, I am writing to express the support of 

the Houston Housing Authority (HHA) to fully fund the President's Budget request for the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development's Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program, 

Public Housing Operating and Capital Fund Programs, and Expansion of the Moving to Work 

Program. Additionally, I am writing to request that the amount of costs for administration of the 

Tenant Based Rental Assistance program be set at no less than 90% of administrative cost 

eligibility. 

Provide Funding to Ensure Adequate Management of the Tenant Based Rental Program 

The Tenant Based Rental Program includes program regulations that ensure federal funds are 

protected from waste, fraud, and abuse. HHA is responsible through HUD regulatious to make 

sure that housing units are inspected to ensure they are safe and habitable. HHA is responsible 

through HUD regulations to make sure that the rents that are paid are not in excess of 

comparable market rents. HHA is responsible through HUD regulations to make sure that 

tenants are eligible and report all income, and that landlords abide by the terms of the lease. 

These functions are essential to the integrity of the program and inherently ensure that federal 

funds are put to their best use. HHA has been able to maintain this high level of program 

integrity through years of decreasing administrative funding. 

In 2013, however, HHA will expend all of its reserves on program and administrative costs due 

to deficits in recent appropriations. Without a minimum level of funding for administration, and 

with no remaining reserves to fund basic program costs, HHA's ability to ensure proper 

administration of the program is placed at risk. It is of great importance that the administrative 

deficits are covered before tenant based programs suffer a lack of program integrity. High 

performing and standard performing agencies desire to continue quality program operations and 

good stewardship of federal dollars. Adequate funding for management of the program is 

essential to continue that stewardship into the future. Therefore, we respectfully request 

consideration of a funding level that is no less than the greater of the President's budget request 

and 90% of administrative cost eligibility. 

Support the President's Budget for Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program 

HUD's Section 8 programs help low-income elderly, families with children, and people with 

disabilities secure and maintain decent, affordable homes. HHA provides over 17,000 Houston 

families with rental assistance through the program. In FY2013, HHA was left with an $8 

million shortfall for program expenditures. To make up the shortfall HHA will expend all of its 

program reserves and will implement measures that will decrease the benefits received by 

Page 1 of3 
664

families participating in the program. Specifically, in addition to operating the program without 

a prudent reserve, the amount of subsidy to each family will be reduced commensurate to the 

number of members in each family. Larger families will be forced to find smaller houses in 

order to live within the decreased subsidy received. Hopefully, HHA will not need to implement 

the termination provisions in the statute in order to operate the program within its allocated 

budget authority. If the level of appropriation is less than the President's request, HHA will be 

forced to make tough decisions that may result in families being involuntarily removed from the 

program. 

Support the President's Budget Proposal to Expand the Moving to Work Program. 

The Moving to Work (MTW) Program was created as part of the 1996 Omnibus Appropriations 

Act and has been expanded through subsequent Appropriations Acts. HHA supports the 

President's budget request to expand the MTW Program to include HHA and other public 

housing agencies. This expansion would not add any additional cost to the federal budget. 

MTW flexibility allows high performing agencies to test innovative policies that streamline and 

consolidate programs and reduce long term costs. With that authority comes the obligation to 

report on outcomes of the associated activities. Expansion of the MTW Program would promote 

program cost savings and eliminate costly and unnecessary, sometimes duplicative 

administrative barriers. In the context of budgetary shortfalls that public housing agencies are 

experiencing, it is clearly apparent that expanded flexibilities are necessary to allow agencies to 

better manage their budgets, and to implement local initiatives that are efficient and produce cost 

savings. Without the ability to take advantage of these efficiencies, many public housing 

agencies will face the reality of shrinking the program size, and fewer families served. 

Implementation of expanded MTW authority would allow many programs to maintain services 

to the same amount of families, while maximizing the impact of federal funds on local families 

in need. 

Support the President's Budget for Public Housing Operating and Capital Funding 

The President's budget request provides for modest increases in public housing operating and 

capital funding. Although the funding level for the Operating Fund presents as a large increase, 

in fact, it is not. The change between the FY13 and FY14 funding levels is a reflection of the 

$750 million offset of operating reserves in FYI2, which partially carried over into the FYI3 

full-year continuing resolution. The recapture of reserves means that public housing agencies are 

now operating their programs on the margins. 

Additionally, the proposed funding level is at 90 percent ofHUD's estimate of eligibility. 

Without adequate reserves, agencies are increasingly dependent upon adequate annual funding in 

order to maintain properties in a decent, safe, and sanitary manner. Inadequate funding also 

hampers housing authorities' ability to serve current families in the public housing program and 

further lengthens waiting lists. 

As funding declines for Capital Funds, the amount of deferred maintenance and backlog of 

capital needs accrues at a greater rate. Capital repairs are put on hold while quick fixes are 

implemented in order to maintain a basic level of habitability. While the President's budget does 

Page 2 of3 
665

not provide even half of the funding needed to meet annual accrual needs, and does not provide 

any funding to address the capital needs backlog of$26 billion, it will keep the lights on and roof 

from leaking for another year. 

Support the President's Budget for HUD-VASH Program 

HUD-VASH is the only program that supports the permanent housing and rehabilitation of 

homeless veterans. HUD-V ASH is a joint HUD and V A initiative that provides specially 

designated Section 8 "Housing Choice" vouchers, case management, and supportive services to 

homeless veterans. Vouchers are used to assist with the payment of rent for veterans and their 

families. The goal of the program is to support veterans' permanent housing in the community. 

Page 3 of3 
666

Chair, Patricia Quinn, NNEPRA 

Vice Chair, Jennifer Moczygemba, Texas DOT 

Secretary, Johnson Bridgewater, Oklahoma DOT 

April 26, 2013 

The Honorable Tom Latham 

Chair 

House Appropriations Subcommittee 

on Transportation, HUD, and 

Related Agencies 

2217 Rayburn HOB 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Ed Pastor 

Ranking Member 

House Appropriations Subcommittee 

on Transportation, HUD and 

Related Agencies 

2465 Rayburn HOB 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Latham and Ranking Member Pastor: 

On behalf of the States for Passenger Rail Coalition (SPRC), an organization 

representing 34 member states across the nation, thank you for the opportunity to 

provide input into the FY 2014 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and 

Related Agencies (THUD) appropriation process. As state officials, we appreciate the 

extraordinary budgetary constraints you face. We continue to believe strongly that 

investment in intercity passenger rail to increase frequencies, allow better equipment 

utilization, reduce travel times, and ultimately grow both ridership and revenue will 

lead to valuable economic growth and environmental benefits for the nation. The 

improvements that are made are generally on privately-owned freight railroads and will 

not decrease their ability to meet their customer's transportation needs. To that end, we 

respectfully submit the following policy proposals: 

• We support $500 million for the TIGER program. This program has funded an 

array of critical projects. As in past years, we urge that the emphasis again be 

placed on awards based on a rigorous benefit-cost analysis. 

Provide $500 million for Sections 301, 302, and 50 I of the Passenger Rail 

Investment and Improvement Act (PRIIA). With no earmarks, and an emphasis 

on "readiness to proceed," the money should be awarded competitively and 

spent promptly. More specifically, ten percent of the funding should be used for 

planning purposes. 

States for Passenger Rail Coalition ~ c/o Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority 

75 W. Commercial Street, Suite 104 Portland, Maine 04101 ph 207-780-1000 xlDS fax 207-780-1001 

S4PRC.org 
667

• We strongly support the Administration's proposal for $300 million for a five-year state 

corridor program. These funds would be used both for purchase of new equipment as well as 

providing marginal funding for implementation ofPRIIA Section 209. The implementation of 

Section 209 did not start immediately after passage of the legislation in 2008, but the states 

affected by Section 209 have been working diligently with Amtrak, the current service 

provider, to implement the policy. Despite that consistent collaboration, the work is by no 

means complete. It is critical to note that the funds proposed by the President are for the delta 

between the amount currently paid by the states and the amount to be agreed to as a result of 

negotiations between the states and Amtrak. 

• The Northeast Corridor (NEC), which essentially serves as an extra two lanes on 1-95, is the 

main street of the region. We urge that such sums as may be necessary be provided for three 

key infrastructure projects: (I) Baltimore Tunnel; (2) Susquehanna Bridges; and (3) the 

Gateway project. 

• We respect the efforts of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to explore the future of 

the Northeast Corridor. We strongly encourage the Subcommittee to provide $25 million for 

the FRA's environment and planning efforts. 

• We support $1 million to continue the highly-successful work of the Next Generation Corridor 

Equipment Pool Committee (NGEC) in order to continue to build on the foundation it has 

established. As you know, PRIIA Section 305 called for the establishment of the NGEC " ... to 

design, develop specifications for, and procure standardized next-generation corridor 

equipment." Since its inception in January of201 0, the NGEC has developed, adopted, and 

promulgated five specifications for next generation rail equipment, and has initiated a groundbreaking multi-state procurement for next generation bi-Ievel passenger rail cars. A second 

multi-state procurement is currently underway for the manufacture of diesel-electric 

locomotives. 

By providing publicly available standardized specifications, the NGEC has created a common 

platform from which multiple states can procure rail equipment. The standardized 

specifications make it possible to buy equipment faster, at a lower cost, and with lower future 

costs relating to maintenance, rebuilding, and the purchase of additional equipment. NGECdeveloped specifications, available to all competitors in the rail equipment marketplace, will 

mean that equipment procured will expand employment opportunities in the U.S. domestic 

production, supply, and manufacturing industries. 

• The Rail Line Relocation Program has assisted rural communities in meeting safety and 

operational challenges. We request that this program be provided $25 million. 

• The implementation of positive train control (PTC) is a daunting task for all concerned; we ask 

that you provide $100 million to assist in this vital effort. 

States for Passenger Rail Coalition - c/o Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority 

75 W. Commercio/Street, Suite 104 Port/ond, Maine 04101 ph 207-780-1000 xl 05 fox 207-780-1001 
668

Again, we are very aware of Congress' larger responsibility to balance long-tenn infrastructure 

investment with scarce financial resources; however, we believe it is vital that we do not under-invest 

in the nation's transportation system. Doing so would seriously limit the nation's ability to compete in 

the global marketplace, while also having a negative impact on safety, security and mobility. 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide you with our comments and for your continued support. 

Please contact me directly ifI may provide additional infonnation. 

Resp.ectfuUy, .-.--

~VCA(C~~ Patricia Quinn 

Executive Director, Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority 

Chair, States for Passenger Rail Coalition 

States jor Passenger Rail Coalition - c/o Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority 

75 W. Commercial Street, Suite 104 Portland, Moine 04101 ph 207~"80-1000 xl05 fax 207-780-1001 
669

Testimony Submitted for the Record 

on behalf of 

Aneva J. Yazzie, Chief Executive Officer, Navajo Housing Authority 

to the United States House of Representatives 

Appropriations Committee 

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies 

In Regards to the Fiscal Year 2014 Appropriations 

April 26, 2013 

On behalf of the Navajo Housing Authority (NHA), I am thankful for this opportunity to 

submit testimony to the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development 

(THUD) in regards to the Fiscal Year 2014 appropriations for Indian housing programs 

administered through the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 

Specifically, the NHA requests the Committee to fund the Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG) 

at no less than $700 million, and to fund the Indian Community Development Block Grant 

(ICDBG) at $100 million. These two important programs are essential in providing low income 

housing and housing-related community development throughout Indian Country. At the local 

level, these funds are essential in helping the Navajo Nation meet an unmet housing need of 

34, I 00 housing units, with another 34,300 housing units in need of major repair - this total need 

equates to $9 billion. 

Background on NHA and the Navajo Nation 

The NHA is the Tribally Designated Housing Entity (TDHE) for the Navajo Nation. 

NHA is the largest Indian housing authority, and is nearly the eighth largest public housing 

authority in the United States. NHA is comparable in size to the public housing agency for the 

City of Atlanta. The Navajo Nation is the largest Indian tribe in the United States, with a total 

enrollment of approximately 300,048 tribal members, and the reservation has a land-base of 

26,897 square miles that extends into the states of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. 

Comprised of 375 employees and staff, NHA manages 8,026 housing units that consist of 

approximately 3,882 public rental units and 4,144 homeownership units including 29 separate 

administrative facilities. There are fifteen separate field offices and one residential Management 

Corporation managed by NHA to deliver service to tribal members residing within 110 Chapters 

(local regional government units) and their surrounding communities. It is important to note that 

the NHA is an anomaly in the public housing sector - there is no large-scale public housing 

provider like NHA that operates in an expansive rural reservation area with unique land issues. 

The housing development challenges on the Navajo are complex because of our sheer scale of 

operation, tribal land status and socio-economic conditions. 

-1-
670

The mission ofNHA is Housing our Nation by Growing Sustainable Communities. On 

May 1,2013, the NHA will move into a new chapter in its history as it celebrates its 50th year in 

operation. The 50th anniversary ofNHA will be more than a celebration of its past success, but it 

will be a commencement to inaugurate a new vision for the next 50 years to come. This year 

alone NHA is on track to build and modernize 537 homes across the Navajo Nation. After 

completing an expansive scientifically based housing needs assessment in 2011, the organization 

forged ahead on an initiative to create a sustainable community master plan for the entire Navajo 

Nation - a master plan that will help NHA execute large-scale housing development projects in 

the coming years. Even more, the organization is expanding the veterans housing program and 

transforming its homeownership program to include individuals from low, moderate and high 

incomes, so that all Navajo families can partake in the dream of homeowners hip. It is the goal of 

NHA to help build a home for every Navajo family while strengthening the socio-economic 

fabric of the Navajo Nation. 

Response to FY2014 Congressional Justifications from HUD 

NHA feels it is necessary to provide clarification and additional background to the 

following language that was included in the FY2014 Congressional Justification that was 

provided by HUD. 

One IHBG recipient, the Navajo Nation, accounts for about half of all undisbursed IHBG 

funds. The Navajo Housing Authority has had capacity issues, which HUD is 

aggressively addressing. Capacity issues related to subcontracting and staff turnover 

either have been or are in the process of being addressed by the Navajo Housing 

Authority management. Several major construction contracts were awarded infiscal year 

2012, which obligated a significant amount of Navajo's IHBG funds. HUD has stepped 

up its training, technical assistance, and program oversight efforts for this grantee. 

It must be noted that the Navajo Nation's undisbursed IHBG funds are related to a 

number of issues that have been addressed. The main issue that accounts for this backlog relates 

to a three-year moratorium that was placed on the organization back in 2007 by HUD's Office of 

Inspector General. The moratorium placed a halt on any new construction or projects from 

NHA's sub-recipient program-at the time, NHA had nearly 50 local housing providers who 

assisted NHA in providing housing services and were given sub-recipient grants from NHA ' s 

IHBG funds. The sub-recipient program was also the largest part of the organization's housing 

development program at the time. The moratorium was placed on NHA because of an incident 

that occurred in 2007 where the former Chief Executive Officer ofNHA was indicted for 

embezzlement and fraud. The case related directly to the sub-recipient program, therefore the 

moratorium was issued halting any new construction performed under the program. 

·2· 
671

In 2006, after the incident was revealed, the NHA Board of Commissioners acted quickly 

to address the issues. The former CEO was replaced, as well as a number of senior employees 

within the organization. I am the new CEO that was employed by the NHA Board of 

Commissioners and I, and the new management team, undertook the task of addressing a number 

of organizational issues, which included performing scrupulous forensic audits of all contracts 

and business conducted by the organization during the period of the previous CEO's 

employment. NHA wants Congress to know that the new leadership did not stand idle during this 

time, they reassessed the entire organization and set a new direction and path that was founded 

on accountability with tougher internal controls. 

NHA's sub-recipient grant program was revamped to ensure that any current and future 

grantees had well-instituted internal controls to handle any housing development projects. 

Further, the number oflocal housing providers who received funds was reduced from 50 to 25. 

Working with HUD, the organization was able to address a number of outstanding review 

findings and nearly four years later, in January 20 II, the HUD Office of Native American 

Programs sent a letter to NHA that closed any outstanding findings. It was at this time that NHA 

was finally given the green light to move forward. In the fall of2012, the organization received 

an independent unqualified audit with no substantial findings. 

Since 2007, NHA has undergone several audits, federal monitoring reviews, and 

evaluations. All reviews have indicated that NHA has the capacity to operate its federal program 

funds. Moreover, NHA received $34 million in ARRA funds that it appropriately and 

successfully spent within the two year time-frame - NHA's successful use of those ARRA funds 

shows that the organization is able to operate effectively and efficiently. 

NHA Expenditure Plan 

NHA has developed and is executing an aggressive expenditure plan that will utilize all 

of its allocated IHBG funds by 2016. Please see the table below. 

LOCCS Balance 

Planned 

Sub-Total 

Estimated IHBG 

Allocation 

TOTAL 

2013 

$45876987 

$13700000( 

$32176987 

$84,100,000 

$405,869,87t 

2014 2015 

$40586987( $33086987( 

$15500000( $155,000,00( 

$250 86987t $175 869 86~ 

$80,000,000 $75,000,000 

$330,869,87t $250,869,86 

2016 2017 

$25086986 $14586785 

$175000,00( $150000,00( 

$75,869867 $0.00 

$70,000,000 $65,000,000 

$145,869,86~ $65,000,000 

After the NHA reorganization in 2007, the new leadership (including the Chief Executive 

Officer and the Board of Commissioners) set on a path to create a multi-faceted approach to 

-3-
672

address large-scale housing development with the understanding that they would need to use the 

allocated federal housing funds collected during time ofits reorganization. From 2007 to 2013, 

NHA launched several initiatives to lay the groundwork for large-scale sustainable housing and 

community development. First, the organization started by assessing and analyzing its current 

housing need on the Navajo Nation. From 2009 to 2011, the organization completed a 

comprehensive scientifically-sound housing needs assessment study for the Navajo Nation. 

Simultaneously, the NHA built a technologically advanced land information management system 

that would provide a tool and resource for planning while meeting an unmet need for floodplain 

maps. With these resources in hand, NHA took the planning process a step further and began a 

monumental effort to complete a sustainable community master plan for the entire Navajo 

Nation that would aid in large-scale housing development. And finally, the organization initiated 

the development of an expanded homeownership program that includes fmancing options for 

individuals and families from low, moderate and high income levels. 

Conclusion 

NHA has the capacity and is in a position now to execute large-scale housing 

development on the Navajo Nation. We have an aggressive expenditure plan, and a means to 

attain the spending schedules we have outlined and projected. NHA was pleased to have a visit 

from congressional appropriations staff in January 2012 - they were able to see first-hand that 

NHA truly operates with realistic housing and community development challenges like lack of 

access to infrastructure, regulatory limits on development because of the tribal trust land status, 

and deeply depressed socio-economic conditions. We hope that Congress and the Appropriators 

will understand the past situation that the organization was placed, and most of all we hope that 

Congress will appreciate that NHA has changed the environment in which we are conducting 

business today - we have strong internal controls and are headed in a path of sustainable housing 

development for our Navajo people. 

NHA strongly believes that the Native American Housing Assistance and Self 

Determination Act (NAHASDA) is an effective program, and overall tribes have spent nearly 90 

percent of the federal funds allocated-NHA itself has a fairly good expenditure rate of 

approximately 68 percent overall. However, it must be noted that whenever one compares the 

Navajo Housing Authority to any other public housing entity, whether an Indian or non-Indian 

Housing Program, they must consider the sheer differences in size, regions, and nature of the 

programs. It is known that NHA is an anomaly within HUD - it is the largest Indian housing 

authority and when compared to public housing it would be considered the eighth largest public 

housing authority in the nation. It also known that providing housing in any rural setting is 

grueling, and Navajo experiences unique, complex and large-scale challenges when providing 

housing over a 27,000 square mile area in which 90 percent of the land is under federal trust land 

status. 

-4-
673

On behalf of the NHA, r appreciate the opportunity to provide you this written testimony 

for the record, and would be please to answer any questions that the Committee, the 

Appropriators or the Congress may have. 

-5-
674

Outside Witness Testimony 

submitted by the 

National AIDS Housing Coalition 

before the 

House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development 

and Related Agencies 

April 26, 2013 

The National AIDS Housing Coalition (NAHC) is a national housing policy and advocacy organization 

working to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic by ensuring that persons living with HIV/AIDS have quality, 

affordable and appropriate housing. NAHC's network of members and includes hundreds of low-income 

people living with HIV/AIDS, relying on federal housing assistance to improve their ability to access and 

remain in care. On their behalf, we ask that you fund the highly successful and cost effective Housing 

Opportunities for Persons With AIDS Program (HOPWA) at a level of $36S.2 million for FY2014. While 

this amount would provide assistance to far fewer than the actual number of people with HIV/AIDS that 

are eligible for and in need of housing assistance, it would permit housing help for an additional 4,2S0 

households beyond the 61,614 unduplicated households currently served. HUD's own data indicates 

146,986 households are currently eligible for HOPWA but unserved. In fact, HIV/AIDS housing providers 

project that half of the 1.2 million people with HIV / AIDS require some form of housing assistance during 

the course oftheir illness. This request represents the HIV/A1DS housing community's recognition ofthe 

considerable challenges of the cu rrent economic climate yet still provides for some of the most 

vulnerable whose access to care and health outcomes are inextricably linked to housing status. 

NAHC is the only national housing organization that focuses specifically on the housing and housingrelated service needs of low-income people with HIV/AIDS. A core tenet of our mission is to see housing 

acknowledged and funded as a component of HIV prevention and healthcare. As more people are living 

longer with the virus and require housing assistance, unmet need is significant across the country. We 

understand that as many as three new jurisdictions may become eligible for funding during 2014, 

requiring that providers stretch already scarce existing resources to serve more people. 

Anecdotal reports from the NAHC membership and supporters reveal more than 45,000 people waiting 

for housing assistance in just 14 reporting jurisdictions. In the southern part of United States, where the 

epidemic is growing the fastest, resources continue to be unavailable. In Dallas, TX, for example, more 

than 4,375 people are awaiting housing assistance, not counting those who have given up, resigned to 

life doubled and tripled up in unsuitable dwellings, moving from shelter to shelter, or simply navigating 

the streets. In places where the epidemic is most mature, the numbers waiting are even larger. In los 

Angeles, for example, more than 11,000 are waiting for housing. 

Research shows that homelessness increases HIV risk. In a NYC study, for example, new diagnoses 

among NYC shelter users were 16 times higher than among general population. Conversely, HJV 

increases risk of homeless ness. Research demonstrates that up to 70% of people with H IV/AIDS report a 
675

lifetime experience of homelessness or housing instability. In some communities as many as 70% of 

people with HIV/AIDS are literally homeless, living in shelters on the streets or in places not intended for 

human habitation. 

For vulnerable population risk even greater. For example, among a study involving HIV-positive women, 

research demonstrated if homeless or unstably housed at time of diagnosis, that women were at an 

increased risk for delayed entry into care and receipt of housing assistance was associated with access 

to care and reentry into care after dropping out. Unmet subsistence needs, including housing, had the 

strongest overall effect on physical and mental health of homeless women, with a greater effect on 

overall health as antiretroviral therapy. 

Research, much of which has been presented through NAHC's Housing and H1V/A1DS Research Summit 

Series, confirms housing as a strategic healthcare intervention to reduce health disparities by addressing 

both HIV / AIDS and those contexts that most expose people to HIV risk, including gender, extreme 

poverty, mental illness, chronic drug use, incarceration, and histories of exposure to trauma and 

violence, as well as homeless ness. In addition, housing coupled with related services, reduces overall 

public expense and more wisely deploys limited public resources. Research presented through NAHC's 

Housing and HIV/AJDS Research Summit Series, including a searchable data base of more than 300 

articles on housing and HIV/AIDS, can be found at the Summit Series permanent website, 

www.hivhousingsummit.org. 

HOPWA's track record for helping people with HIV/AIDS achieve housing stability is sterling. During 

program year 2011 2012, more than 95% of people receiving tenant-based rental assistance through 

HOPWA achieved housing stability. Among those receiving any form of HOPWA housing assistance, over 

93% developed a housing plan for continued on-going housing and nearly 89% had on-going contact 

with a primary care provider as specified in their s service plans. 

Moreover, housing is a proven cost-saving and cost-effective healthcare and housing intervention. 

Housing sharply reduces avoidable emergency and inpatient health services, criminal justice 

involvement and other crises that are costly for both individuals and communities. One of the two 

seminal studies in this area, the Chicago Housing for Health Partnership (CHPPj found that homeless 

people with AIDS who received housing consumed $6,620 less in publicly funded housing. medical and 

crisis care than a comparison group that continued in "usual care", not receiving a housing voucher. 

The public cost "savings" generated by providing housing supports can fully offset the cost of the 

housing for people with AIDS, even before taking into account that each new HIV infection prevented 

through housing stability saves $400,000 in lifetime medical costs. 

There has been some national progress on evidence -based action on housing and HIV/AIDS. The July 

2010 National HIV/AIDS Housing Strategy recognizes that housing is healthcare for people with HIV/AIDS 

and calls for increased resources and calls on federal agencies to consider additional efforts to support 

housing assistance and other services to enhance adherence. In addition, in July 2012, the Department 
676

of Health and Human Services included housing as one of seven common core indicators to monitor 

HHD-funded prevention, treatment and care services. Despite these advances, no additional resources 

have been made available for housing. 

NAHC's geographically diverse board fully supports and anxiously awaits the revision of the HOPWA 

formula as directed in the National HIV/AIDS Strategy to yield a fairer allocation of resources more 

directly tied to the current geographic distribution of the epidemic. Rural settings, the southeast and 

other regions Until the formula is modernized, we ask that the Committee I continue to support levels 

of funding for the program in its current formulation that will permit some of those waiting to be 

served. 

In addition, HIV/AIDS providers urge adequate funding for Homeless Assistance Grants, Section 8 

Housing Choice Vouchers, public housing, the 811 program for people with disabilities, and the range of 

housing programs relied upon by people coping with HIV/AIDS. 

We respectfully request the Subcommittee to consider protecting and expanding resources in the 

Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Program, a proven, effective HIV prevention and 

healthcare intervention. 

Respectfu"y submitted, 

National AIDS Housing Coalition 

727 1Sth Street, NW, 11th Floor 

Washington, DC 2000S 

Nancy@nationalaidshousing.org 

Phone: (202) 347-0333 

Fax: (202) 347-3411 
677

• ARHA 

BUILDING COMMUNITY 

PARTNERSHIPS 

April 25, 2013 

Roy O. Priest, 

Commissioners; 

Christopher Ballard, Chairman 

Merrick Malone, Vice Chairman 

Melvin Miller 

Chief Executive Officer 

Alexandria Redevelopment and 

Housing Authority 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

The Honorable Tom Latham 

Chairman, House Appropriations Subcommittee 

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development 

And Related Agencies 

2217 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Carter D. Flemming 

Chyrell Buckseli 

Brett Ubresco 

Karl Sandberg 

Daniel Bauman 

Michelie Millben 

Roy Priest, Chief Executive Officer 

The Honorable Ed Pastor 

Ranking Member, House Appropriations 

Housing and Urban Development 

And Related Agencies 

2465 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Latham and Ranking Member Pastor: 

I am writing this letter in strong support ofNARHO's FY 2014 funding recommendations to the 

HUDbudget. 

As CEO of the Alexandria Redevelopment and Housing Authority, I can tell you first-hand how the 

spending caps from the Budget Control Act of 2011, disproportionate reductions in domestic 

discretionary dollars and the March 1" sequester have impacted the people at the threshold level for 

Housing Authorities. 

• Housing Authorities are providing less service to residents due to staff furloughs and no 

overtime to complete tasks such as work orders that may take more than a day to make a 

repair. This is an inefficient use of staff s time. 

• The impact on the income percentile that Housing Choice Vouchers serve from the wait lists 

and low income families; cutting funding for Section 8 Voucher Holders creates the perfect 

stonn for a new crisis of Family Homelessness. This will also create financial burden on 

Tax Payers. Congress should not have to increase funding for homeless programs when 

there are programs in place that work to prevent it. 

600 North fairfax Street. Alexandria. VA 22314' Office: (703) 549-7115 • Fax: (7031 549-8709' 100 (703) 836-6425 

G:r~~~. 
678

• Maintenance services are being deferred to properties which will cause them to fall into 

disrepair and obviously cost more in the long run. 

The cuts will take public housing back to a time when little or no consideration was given to the 

environmental or social needs of the residents. At that time, Housing Authorities were little more 

that property managers. 

Public Housing is not just bricks and mortar. It is improving the housing system, providing 

opportunities for the community to be inclusive, reinvesting in our neighborhoods so that they are 

places of choice and opportunity. The budget cuts and sequestration takes these opportunities away. 

Allow me to emphasize and to put into context how important it is to create an environment that 

protects not only Housing Authorities infrastructure but also the lives and wellbeing of residents 

allowing for both to remain stable factors in this country. Resident involvement in programs 

established by Housing Authorities builds confidence and aspirations of upward mobility in striving 

for the American Dream. Budget cuts that harm these programs produces circumstances and 

conditions that negatively impact cities large and small that is crucial to the fabric of this country. 

For these reasons, I strongly urge you to VOTE for NARHO's FY 2014 funding recommendations 

to the HUD budget. 

Regards, 

Roy 

~ O. Priest 

Chief Executive Officer 

2 
679

NAHRO 

Recommended FY 2014 Funding Levels for Selected HUD Programs 

[Brackets] and italiciz1Jd text indicate set-asideslsub-aa:ounts. 

FY2013 FY 2014 

• Enacted levels from Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, as signed by the Presidant on March 22. 2013. Figures 

reflect application of 0.2 percent across-th<>board cut as required by the legislation. 

b Figures reflect 5 percent across-th<>board aaquastration reductions as calculated by the Office of Management and Budge! on March 1, 2013. 

'Obama Admini_on's proposad budge! for FY 2014. Figures do not reflect proposad Transformation Initiative seI-asides. d NAHRO recommendations are for standaJoneIIine-item funding. Stank indicates no position. 

• The budge! proposes to reduoe atigibility by a total of $63 mUlion !hrough changas to flat rant and the medical expense deduclion !hreshold. 

I NAHRO's recommendation assumes that eligibility is detennined according to current statutes and regulations governing such catculations. 

9 Proposes the elimination of safety and security measures as an eligible use of funding. 

h NAHRO's support lot this funding level Is contingent upon responsible funding levels for !he Operating and capital Funds and the enac1ment 

of aulhorizing legislation requiring !hat two !hirds of each yeal's funding be awarded to projects where PHAs are the lead or oo-applicants. 

1 The Ad. authortzes the use of HAP adjustment fund "for PHAs. that despite taking reasonabJe cost savings measures, as determined by the 

· Secretary, would _se be required to tenninate participating fammes from !he program due to insufficient funds: 

, Assumes $235 million in savings from proposad changes to income targe!ing, minimum rents, and Ihe medical expense deduclion Ihreshold. 

and the determination of utility allowances. Also assumes an unspecified amount of indirect funding through oflSets of -excess" HAP Reserves 

from noo-MtW PHAs and MtW PHAs. 

k The Adminl_on proposes eliminating Iha Section 8 FSS set-aside in favor of a standaione consoIide!ed program to serve Public Housing 

and Section 8 HCV residents. 

I The Act authorizes the use of Bunobligated balances, induding recaptures and canyover, remaining from funds appropriatecr for FY 2013 and 

prior yes", under !he headings of "Housing Certificate Fund,"' Annual Contnbulions for Assisted Housing," and "Project.Based Rental Assistance- for -renewal of or amendments to section 8 project-baSed contracts and for performance-based contract administrators..· 

m NAHRO SUpports a stabie, reliabie subsidy atream in !he form offull12-monlfl contract renewal funding. 

n In lieu of appropriations, the Administration proposes collecting a fee from borrowers to cover the program's credit subsidy costs. 

April 16, 2013 

(i)

WITNESSES 

Page 

Berg, S. R ................................................................................................................. 633 

Bodaken, Michael .................................................................................................... 613 

Capon, R. B .............................................................................................................. 658 

Cook, Kris .. .......................... ........................... ......... ................................................. 594 

Dexter, Jennifer . .................... ......... .......... ..... .......................................................... 574 

Donovan, Hon. Shaun .............................................................................................. 185 

Gunsolley, Tory ................................................................. ....................................... 663 

Herr, Phillip ............................................................................................................. 1 

Hilton, Cynthia ........................................................................................................ 566 

Huerta, Michael ....................................................................................................... 239 

Kaiser, T. G .............................................................................................................. 581 

La Branche, Mindy.... ............. ................... ............. ................................. ................ 648 

LaHood, Hon. Ray .................................................................................................... 143 

McFadden, Marion ...... ................. ..... .... ................................ ............... ......... ........... 59 

Melaniphy, M. P ...................................................................................................... 653 

Montoya, David .... ....... ..... ............ ......... ........... ......... ............................................ ... 1 

Porcari, John ... ...................................... ...... ..... .... ..... ................................ .... ........ ... 59 

Priest, R. 0 ............................................................................................................... 677 

Quinn, Patricia ......................................................................................................... 666 

Ramirez, S. N., Jr .................................................................................................... 620 

Rogoff, P. M .............................................................................................................. 111 

Scire, Mathew ................................... ..... ...... .... ..... ................. ........... ........ ............ ... 1 

Scovel, Calvin, III .................................................................................................... 1 

Shay, M. E ................................................................................................................ 608 

Sperling, Andrew ..................................................................................................... 641 

Sutcliffe, T.J ............................................................................................................. 641 

Szabo, J. C ................................................................................................................ 527 

Tombar, Fred ........................................................................................................... 59 

Vernola, Luigi ........................ ................... ................... ....... .................... ........ .... ..... 599 

Wise, D. M ................................................................................................................ 603 

Wisniewski, John ..................................................................................................... 577 

Yazzie, A. J .............................. ................... .......................................... .................... 669