# BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

Slot Exemption Proceeding at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41718(b) Docket DOT-OST-2000-7182

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND REPLY OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON AND THE GREATER HOUSTON PARTNERSHIP

Communications with respect to this document should be sent to:

Mario C. Diaz Director Ian Wadsworth Chief Commercial Officer Department of Aviation CITY OF HOUSTON 16930 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Houston, TX 77032 (281) 233-3000 (281) 233-1859 (fax)

Robert Harvey President and Chief Executive Officer GREATER HOUSTON PARTNERSHIP 1200 Smith Street, Suite 700 Houston, TX 77002 (713) 844-3600 (713) 844-0200 (fax) Rachel B. Trinder Jol A. Silversmith ZUCKERT, SCOUTT & RASENBERGER, L.L.P. 888 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006-3309 (202) 973-7927 (202) 342-0683 (fax) rbtrinder@zsrlaw.com jasilversmith@zsrlaw.com

For the City of Houston and the Greater Houston Partnership

Dated: December 31, 2012

# BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WASHINGTON, D.C.

Slot Exemption Proceeding at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41718(b) Docket DOT-OST-2000-7182

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AND REPLY OF THE CITY OF HOUSTON AND THE GREATER HOUSTON PARTNERSHIP

The City of Houston and the Greater Houston Partnership (collectively, “Houston”

or the “Houston Parties”) respectfully seek leave to file an otherwise unauthorized

document pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 302.6(b), namely this reply to the responsive

pleadings filed in this docket on December 19, 2012 by JetBlue and US Airways.1

# This

reply has the limited purpose ofalerting the Department to certain misstatements of

statutory authority, Departmental precedent, and other authorities cited in those

pleadings, and therefore issupported by good cause.

In reply to the pleadings of JetBlue and US Airways, and in support of

Southwest’s application to provide service between Ronald Reagan Washington

National Airport (“DCA”) and Houston’s medium-hub gateway, William P. Hobby Airport

(“HOU” or “Hobby”), the Houston Parties state as follows:

1

## Common names are used for carriers.

# Motion for Leave to File and Reply of the City of Houston and the Greater Houston Partnership Page 2

I. JETBLUE’S ASSERTION THAT SOUTHWEST’S HOBBY APPLICATION “CONTRAVENES CONGRESSIONALINTENT AND EXCEEDS THE DEPARTMENT’S DISCRETION”IS WHOLLY INCORRECT AND MISSTATES THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.

JetBlue has asserted that an award to Southwest would be inconsistent with the

underlying statute, even though JetBlue does not dispute that Hobby is a medium-hub

airport pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 41714(h)(9). SeeJetBlue Response, at 6-7. This

assertion is wholly unfounded and incorrect. Indeed, this issue already has been

addressed by the Department. In the first AIR-21 slot exemption proceeding, the

Department rejected the assertion that medium-hub airports serving large markets were

ineligible under the statute, and confirmed that MDW and DAL were eligible destinations

for slot exemptions designated for medium-hub airports, even though those airports
serve the greater Chicago and Dallas/Fort Worth markets, respectively. SeeOrder

2000-7-2, at 18.2

# In this proceeding, the fact that Hobby serves the greater Houston

market likewise is in no way disqualifying – and indeed, as discussed in Houston’s

previously-filed comments (see, e.g., pp. 8-9), the strength of the greater Houston

market is one of the key pillars strongly supporting the grant of Southwest’s application

in this proceeding. For the many reasons detailed in Southwest’s and Houston’s prior

submissions, and based on Department precedent, the fact that Hobby serves a large

and growing market is a positive decisionalfactor and should begiven great weight.

2

## Similarly, the Department has awarded DCA exemptionsfor services to FLL, which for the purposes of slot proceedings is consideredto be a medium hub – see, e.g., Order 2008-2-28, at 9 & n.11 – and which both the Department and JetBlue in other proceedings have acknowledged serves the greater Miami market. SeeOrder 2009-11-3, at 2; JetBlue Reply, at 11-12 (December 18, 2007) (docket DOT-OST2007-0006). The Department also previously has established that larger markets should be favored in comparison with Jacksonville to “best achieve the goalof promoting air transportation” – with specific reference to its decision to award slots to ATA Airlines for MDW-DCA flights. SeeOrder 2000-7-2, at 21.

# Motion for Leave to File and Reply of the City of Houston and the Greater Houston Partnership Page 3

Moreover, quotations from the Congressional Record provided by JetBlue (see

JetBlue Response, at 18) have been improperly shorn of their context and utilized in a

manner that is misleading. JetBlue cites a statement from Senator Charles Grassley in

support of its argument that Houston’s marketsize alone should disqualify Southwest’s

application. But a review of the Congressional Record shows that the Senator’s

statement in fact concerned the phased el imination of slots at ORD and LGA and

not slot exemptions at DCA

.See146 Cong. Rec. S1252 (March 8, 2000), attached

as Exhibit HOU-R-101.

Similarly, while Representative Jerry Costello noted that AIR-21 would aid small

communities, he also emphasized that the legislation would (i) “increase competition”

(as would Southwest’s proposednew service here), (ii) help “underserved communities

receive service” (as demonstrated by Southwest, Houston is underserved relative to the

size of its market – seeSouthwest Answerat 5-6 and Exhibit WN-R-12), and (iii) ensure

“more equitable competition in an industry where individual air carriers have market

dominance over many communities” (as is thecase here with United’s dominance in the

Houston-DCA market). See146 Cong. Rec. H1026 (March 15, 2000), attached as

Exhibit HOU-R-102.

Moreover, neither Congressman expressed, as suggested by JetBlue (see

JetBlue Response, at 18), “concern[] that larger citieswould enjoy all ofthe benefits” of

DCA slot exemptions.

That JetBlue would make such assertionsis troubling, and they must be rejected

outright as wholly incorrect. As the record amply demonstrates, an award of the

# Motion for Leave to File and Reply of the City of Houston and the Greater Houston Partnership Page 4

available slot exemptions to Southwest for HOU-DCA services would indeed be

consistent with Congressional directives.

II. IN ALLEGING THAT SOUTHWEST’SPROPOSED SERVICE TO HOU WOULD NOT SATISFY THE “MONOPOLY ROUT E” CRITERION OF 49 U.S.C. § 41718(B)(4), JETBLUE IGNORES CRITICAL DEPARTMENT PRECEDENT.

JetBlue also has asserted that an award to Southwest would not “genuine[ly]”

satisfy the “competitive nonstop air” criterion, because Southwest would serve HOU

while the existing Houston-DCA flights serve George Bush Intercontinental Airport

(“IAH”). SeeJetBlue Response, at 21. Again, this assertion is incorrect and

contravenes Department precedent. In the first AIR-21 slot exemption proceeding, the

Department awarded four slot exemptions to ATA Airlines for MDW -DCA services,

observing that ATA would compete with the ORD-DCA services operated by the hubdominant carriers American and United. SeeOrder 2000-7-2, at 19.That principle and

laudable goal is equally applicable here, where new low-fare services by Southwest at

Hobby would compete with services operated by hub-dominant United at Houston’s

other commercial airport, IAH,both fulfilling the statutory criterion andproviding other

competitive and public benefits, as demonstrated by Southwest and in Houston’s

previously-filed comments (see, e.g., pp. 4-5).3

3

## Moreover, elsewhere JetBlue contradicts its own argument by taking the position that HOU and IAH should be considered a single market. SeeJetBlue Response, at 6. As for JetBlue’s argument that Southwest’s Hobby proposal is improperly directedat competition with United rather than DCA-slot dominant US Airways, seeid.at 16, its assertions in fact only emphasize the opposite of what it intended – namely that Southwest’s proposalwould provide competition to both US Airways and United, by introducing new, low-fare service in competition with United in Houston, and helping to build the critical mass of slots needed by Southwest to compete with US Airways at DCA. See alsoExhibit HOU-124 (noting that the only ex-DCA monopoly markets larger than Houston also are markets served by carriers other than US Airways).

# Motion for Leave to File and Reply of the City of Houston and the Greater Houston Partnership Page 5

III. CONTRARY TO US AIRWAYS’ ASSE RTION, THE SLOTS AT ISSUE HERE DO NOT COME FROM THE POOL RESERVED FOR SM ALL HUBS AND NONHUBS; THE DEPARTMENT’S OWN NOTICE CONFIRMS THAT MEDIUM HUBS, SUCH AS HOBBY, ARE ELIGIBLE.
Remarkably, US Airways has asserted that the new entrant/limited incumbent

criterion does not apply to “small community air service” and thus is inapplicable to the

extent that US Airways has proposed to serve a small community.4

# SeeUS Airways

Answer, at 5. That is incorrect. While it istrue that the criterion does not apply to the

allocation of the six slot exemptions reserved for service to small hubs and nonhub

airports, see49 U.S.C. § 41718(c)(3)(A), those slot exemptions are not at issue in

this proceeding

.As clearly established in the Department’s notice dated November

13, 2012, the available slot exemptions are among those that also can be used for

service to medium-hub airports, such as HOU.5

# See alsoOrder 2008-5-9, at 6; Order

2010-12-16, at 3 n.6.

IV. THE CRITERION OF 49 U.S.C. § 41718(B)(3) IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY FULFILLED BY THE SMALLEST COMMUNITY AT ISSUE IN A DCA SLOT EXEMPTION PROCEEDING, AS CLAIMED BY US AIRWAYS.
US Airways has asserted that it fulfills this criterion in this proceeding simply

because Oklahoma City is the smallest community to which service has been proposed.

SeeUS Airways Answer, at 7. That also is incorrect. In prior within-perimeter slot

allocation proceedings, the Department has established that an applicant seeking

4

## As discussed infra, US Airways has not actually established in this proceeding that it fulfills the criterion of 49 U.S.C. § 41718(b)(3).

5 

## “Applicants must propose to provide service toDCA from airports that were designated as medium hub, small hub, or nonhub airports” as statutorily defined. SeeNotice, at 1 (November 13, 2012) (emphasis added). Unquestionably, Hobby is a medium hub as statutorily defined.

# Motion for Leave to File and Reply of the City of Houston and the Greater Houston Partnership Page 6

priority on the basis being a small community must affirmatively show that a proposed

destination qualifies as small forstatutory purposes. See, e.g., Order 2010-12-16, at 10

(noting that the statute does not define a small community, and that Kansas City had

not been demonstrated by applicants to qualify); Order 2004-12-6, at 7 (finding that a

community with “a population well over 1 million” did not qualify). In this proceeding, US

Airways has offered no such evidence; only bare assertion.6

# Thus, US Airways has not

fulfilled the statutory “small communities” criterion – and as summarized in Houston’s

previously-filed comments, under such circumstances the Department has indicated

that service proposals to larger markets (such as Houston) in fact should be preferred,

because they would generate the greatest public benefits (see, e.g., pp. 7-8, citing

Order 2000-7-2, at 19 and 21,and Order 2008-2-28, at 9).

WHEREFORE, the Houston Parties request that the Department grant their

motion, incorporate the corrections stated above into its deliberations, and award the

two slot exemptions at issue in this proceeding to Southwest for DCA-Hobby service.

6

## Additionally, the Department previously found that US Airways did “notmake a persuasive case” that a community with a population less than that of Oklahoma City (compared against the Census data cited in this proceeding by US Airways) qualified as statutorily small. SeeOrder 2008-11-19, at 6.

# Motion for Leave to File and Reply of the City of Houston and the Greater Houston Partnership Page 7

Respectfully submitted,

Rachel B. Trinder Jol A. Silversmith ZUCKERT, SCOUTT & RASENBERGER, L.L.P. 888 Seventeenth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006-3309 (202) 973-7927 (202) 342-0683 (fax) rbtrinder@zsrlaw.com jasilversmith@zsrlaw.com
For the City of Houston and the Greater Houston Partnership

Dated: December 31, 2012

# Exhibit HOU-R-101

Statement of Senator Grassley – 146Cong. Rec. S1252 (March 8, 2000)

81252 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE 

## March 8, 2000

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

DEMOCRATIC STAFF Kevin Kayes, Moses Boyd, SamWhitehorn, Ellen Doneski, Julia Krauss, Jonathan Oakman, and Carl Bentzel.
REPUBLICAN STAFF Mike Reynolds, Ann Choiniere, Scott Verstandig, Jim Sartucci, Keith Hennesy, BrettHale.
BUDGET STAFF

Bill Hoagland, Cheryl Tucker, and Mitch Warren.
APPROPRIATIONS STAFF

Wally Burnett and PeterRogoff.
HOUSE REPUBLICAN STAFF Jack Shenendorf, Roger Norber, Sharon Barkaloo, Chris Bertram, Dave Schaeffer, Adam Tsao, Rob Chamberlin and David Balloff.
HOUSE DEMOCRATIC STAFF

Dave Hymsfeld, Ward McCarriger, Stacy Soumbeniotis, Tricia Loveland, Paul Feldman, who left last November, and Collen Carr.



### Mr. ROCKEFELLER. yield the floor, Mr. President, and reserve the remainderofmy time.



### The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, how much time do the proponents have remaining?



### The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twelve and a halfminutes.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I yield 5 of those minutes to the distinguished Senatorfrom Iowa.



### The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. CHAFEE). The Senator from Iowa is recognized.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the conference report before us has been a long time in the making. It is a comprehensive bill that successfully addresses many important aviation issues. Not the least of these is the eventual elimination of the so-called slot rules at three of our nation's airports, O'Hare, Kennedy and LaGuardia. It also adds additional slots at Reagan Washington National Airport. I support these measures.

I congratulate Senator McCAIN, the Senate Commerce Committee Chairman, Senator GORTON, the Aviation Subcommittee Chairman, Senator HoLLINGS, the full committee ranking member, and Senator ROCKEFELLER, the subcommittee ranking member, for their efforts to bring about good public policy. This has not been an easy conference, and all ofyou have put forth a tremendous effort to see that it was concluded successfully. I wish to also thank their staffs.

I also express my thanks and admiration to my good friend, Senator DOMENICI, our Budget Committee chairman. Of all the issues before the conference, the resolution of the budget issues was the most trying and complex. Senator DOMENICI and his staff worked tirelessly to seek a fair and adequate solution to this problem.

I express my admiration for my friend and colleague, Senator STEVENS, the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator STEVENS has played a key role in reaching an agreement on spending.

The phase-out of the slot rule at O'Hare and LaGuardia will open a new
era in aviation. Because it is a phaseout and not an immediate termination, that era should also give smaller airports a better chance for a piece of the economic pie at the national and international levels.

While e-commerce may be all the rage currently, people still need to travel for business purposes. Direct human contact is still the premium way to do business, and air travel is the fastest wav to accomolish that

over long

### dist~nces and tight time frames.

This compromise follows the direction which my Iowa colleague, Senator HARKIN, and I set forth early in the debate on the slot rule. We looked at the needs ofthe airports in Iowa, and came to the conclusion together that it was time for a change if our State was to maintain its economic momentum in the national and international marketplace. Iowa does not have a major hub airport that guarantees low-cost or frequent flights. Like most States, we have smaller airports that are greatly affected by the traffic into and out of the major hub airports. In this case those airports are 0 'Hare and LaGuardia.

Our solution was to phase out the slot rule. The first step was to immediately give increased access to the hub airports by turboprop aircraft and regionaljets. These are the aircraft that primarily serve our smaller airports. Giving them time before the slot rule is lifted for large airport-to-large airport competition should give the smaller airports time to establish the economic and market base needed to justify service. Otherwise, we would only see increased flights between major cities, to the exclusion of smaller airports.

We received the support of a large number of Senators who were also concerned about the future of their small hub and nonhub airports. Together, all of us have been able to accomplish what was unthinkable just several years ago, the eventual elimination of t.hP slot. rulP ?Jt. t.hosP two ?Jirport.s. T deeply appreciate their faith and support to accomplish this.

I also thank President Clinton for having the foresight and courage to recommend the elimination of the slot rule at these airports. He gave a legitimacy and momentum to the debate that would not have existed otherwise.

The States attorneys general, lead by Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller, also played a significant part and should be thanked.

Not everyone is entirely happy with the compromise solution in this conference report. I lookupon thatas ratification that it must be a pretty good compromise. I truly feel that the airlines were treated as fairly and equally

as possible. Our Nation's airports will be receiving additional funds for their capital needs under this legislation. I know that these funds are much needed and will be put to good use. Iowa's airports have rehabilitation and expansion plans that will be enhanced by these additional funds. This includes increased disbursements from the Airports and Airways Trust Fund and the increase in the passenger facility charge, PFC. It is important to note that the PFC will not increase at an airport until local authorities have approved an increase. It is entirely within their realm to grant or deny this increase atthe local level.

However, I must again warn the Federal Aviation Administration that

more money will not cure all of the problems facing the FAA and the aviation industry. Fundamental reform of the way the FAA does business and on
a cultural level is necessary if we are to truly make the advances which are needed.

As a budget conferee, I believe the budget compromise is the best we can do at this time. I shall work with Chairman DOMENICI to secure the necessary funds through the budget process.

The biggest disappoint to me is the inclusion of a civil fine against airline employee whistle-blowers. While I am very pleased that whistle-blower protection has been extended to the aviation industry, I feel that it is flawed due to the civil penalty. Such a penalty does not exist in other whistle-blower
statutes. I will work to correct this situation.

Whistle-blower protection adds another, much needed, layer ofprotection for the traveling public using our Nation's air transportation system. I am pleased to have worked with the Association of Flight Attendants AFL-CIO

on this important, ground breaking legislation. They have worked tirelessly on this provision, and I know they will continue to work with me to correct this flaw. I call upon the airlines to do the same and seek the help ofthe public, also.

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues
tovote for this conference report.



### The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?

The Senatorfrom New Jersey. Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, thank my colleagues who have worked

so hard to get this bill to this point. It is not fun to oppose something that

was reported out of the conference committee with such strong support.

But I have a different responsibility given the fact that I serve both as the ranking member of the Budget Committee and the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. In my view, this bill represents a missed opportunity to fully address the financing needs of our Nation's aviation system.

To the degree the bill actually guarantees any real funding increases, it does so in a manner that I consider grossly unbalanced. Mr. President, if

# Exhibit HOU-R-102

Statement of Representative Costello – 146 Cong. Rec. H1026 (March 15, 2000)

H1026 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE 

## March 15, 2000

options to reach Washington and Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport via connections at Western hubs like Salt Lake City. This provision is about using this restricted exemption process to spread improved access throughout the West-not to limit the benefits to a few large cities which already have a variety of options.

Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support for H.R. 1000, the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century First, I would like to congratulate Chairman DUNCAN and Ranking Member LIPINSKI fortheir tireless efforts on behalf ofthis bill.

I also want to thank Chairman SHUSTER and Ranking Member OBERSTAR for their leadership on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The bipartisan way in which these two gentlemen conduct the committee is an example for all. Undertheir direction, this Congress has made the maintenance of and investment in our nation's infrastructure a top priority.

AIR-21 is good news for the American people and the country. This legislation maintains the integrity of the trust funds and reinforces the idea that the money we collect from air passengers should be spent on aviation to reduce the backlog of infrastructure needs at our nation's airports.

I am pleased that the impasse over this vital piece of legislation has ended and that the FAA will finally receive the funding they so desperately need. Additionally, AI R-21 is extremely important to Philadelphia, as well as to all airports because it provides the funding necessary to make improvements, enhance capacity, and to increase safety.

AIR-21 vvill inciease spending on aiiport improvements, air traffic control, and other aviation needs. This "record level of investment,"

as Secretary Slater called the $40 billion that will go to the FAA, will make air travel safer and more efficient for everyone.

Mr. Speaker, we have all heard about how crowded our skies are. Domestic air travel had 655 million passengers over the past five years. This number is expected to reach over
one billion in the next ten years. Air travel is the mode of choice for travelers today. The demand is unbelievable and is evidenced at Philadelphia International Airport, which is one of the busiest airports in the eastern region. The passage of this legislation will go a long way towards making Philadelphia International

a better airport. Under this Conference Agreement Philadelphia Airport, a major hub, will receive almost $7 million. This money will be used for new projects that will improve the efficiency of Phiiadeiphia"s airport, since it is congested throughout the day and not just at peak times. Last year, the airport had over 23 million passengers and the funds that Philadelphia International Airport will receive will allow the airport to provide increased capacity for these travelers and to promote safety as well.

I would also like to note that the increase in the Passenger Facility Charge that the conferees reached agreement on is also important to Philadelphia's airport. This modest raise in the cap on the PFC will also allow individual airports, like Philadelphia, the flexibility to proceed with improvement projects not eligible for funding through the Airport Improvement Program.

The passage ofthis bill is essential because it increases funding for air traffic control modernization by almost 50 percent and funding for airport improvements will increase by more than 50 percent. This level of investment is vital to all airports notjust Philadelphia's.

Mr. Speaker, I offer my support for AIR-21 and I urge my colleagues to vote for this important legislation. H.R. 1000 is good for transportation and good forthe nation.

Mr. BARCIA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Title IX of the Conference Report and will limit my remarks to Title IX of the Agreement, which provides a three-year authorization for the research and development activities ofthe Federal Aviation Administration.

I am particularly pleased with the authorization levels that are provided for aviation research and development, both in Title IX and in the Airway Facilities portion of the bill. The budget growth provided by Title IX is focused

on more long-term research and will help reverse recent declines in this essential component ofthe agency's R&D investment.

Sufficient funds must be provided to enable FAA's research and development programs to develop the new technologies that will help increase the capacity and efficiency of operation of the airspace system, while ensuring its safety and security.

I would like to highlight a provision in Title IX that requires FAAto provide Congress with

a complete description of its R&D programs. Some confusion exists about the full scope of FAA's R&D activities, since they appear in different parts of the agency's annual budget submission.

The Inspector General (IG) of the Department of Transportation, in recent testimony before the Science Committee, recommended that FAA identify in its budget basic research, applied research, and development activities, including prototype development. The IG pointed out that such reporting will give the agency a better idea of how it spends development funds and will provide Congress with

a more comprehensive picture of FAA's civil aviation R&D investments.

The reporting provision included in Title IX requires FAA to provide Congress with a comprehensive description of its R&D programs by identifying the individual projects that appear in each category ofthe agency's budget. This information must be provided annually by FAA in the National Aviation Research Plan.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I want to thank our Chairman SHUSTER and Ranking Member OBERSTAR on the Transportation Committee for working with us on Title IX. And as always it has been a pleasure working with Chairwoman MORELLA on FAA's research and development provisions. This Conference Agreement wiii ensure that FAA has the R&D resources needed to meet its challenging goals for the modernization of the national airspace system and for improving the safety of air travel.Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the AIR-21 Conference Report which reauthorizes funding for the Federal Aviation Administration. fts a conferee on this bill, I am pleased that we were able to come together in a bipartisan fashion to provide the funding the FAA needs to provide America with a first class aviation infrastructure for the 21st century.

First, I want to thank Chairman SHUSTER and Ranking Member OBERSTAR for their leadership and persistence in making certain that all aviation tax revenue and interest be spent each year on aviation programs. The Conference Agreement authorizes $40 billion in funding for the next three fiscal years-a 26 percent increase in FY01 alone. This funding provides increases for all aspects ofthe FAA, to modernize its systems and deal

more effectively with our expanding air transportation industry.

This legislation serves to increase competition and aid small communities. The provisions to lift all slot restrictions at O'Hare, La Guardia and Kennedy, and increase the number of slots at National Airport can only help

new airlines provide service and underserved communities receive service. I worked hard to
ensure that rural communities in the Midwest stood to benefit from these new provisions. By improving capacity at large and small airports, the bill ensures more equitable competition in

an industry where individual air carriers have market dominance over many communities. And by promoting access, the bill increases service which currently have little or no markets at all.

The bill also provides funding for small and general aviation airports through an annual entitlement. This provision will guarantee that small and general aviation airports will receive

an annual federal investment to continue to implement safety improvements and projects to increase efficiency.

Finally, AIR-21 should provide money to allow the FAA to make administrative changes without harming ongoing effective programs like the Air Traffic Control Contract Program. I recently urged the FAA Administrator to reject proposals by some bureaucrats to cut this program which is so vital to many small communities, and I hope now with passage of AIR21. she will do so.

Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank Chairman SHUSTER, Mr. 0BERSTAR, Chairman DUNCAN, and Mr. LIPINSKI for their leadership in bringing this bill to the floor today. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation in order to bring our aviation system into the 21st century.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of the conference report for H.R. 1000, the AIR-21 legislation. This legislation is clearly needed to unlock the Aviation Trust Fund and to provide adequate funding for our nation's airports.

This Member would like to begin by commending the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania, (Mr. SHUSTER), the Chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee; the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. OBERSTAR), the ranking member of the Transportation Committee; the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. DuNCAN), the Chairman of the Aviation Subcommittee; and the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. LIPINSKI), the ranking member of the Subcommittee and the other members of the conference committee for their extraordinary work in developing this conference report and bringing it to the Floor. This Member appreciates their diligence, persistence, and hard work.

This is an important bill for this Member's district, for the State of Nebraska, and for the Nation. It addresses the country's growing aviation needs in a fiscally responsible manner. Quite simply, the bill recognizes the need to spend aviation taxes on the aviation system. During the 105th Congress we restored the trust with American drivers by ensuring that gas taxes actually will be spent as available primarily on highway construction and

## CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT WORKING DRAFT 12/30/12



# CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on this 31st day of December 2012, a copy of the foregoing was served on the parties named below in accordance with the Department’s Rules of Practice.

Jol A. Silversmith

Ron Ricks Executive Vice President – Chief Legal and Regulatory Officer Madeleine Johnson Vice President – General Counsel Robert W. Kneisley Associate General Counsel Leslie Abbott Senior Attorney Southwest Airlines Co. ron.ricks@wnco.com madeleine.johnson@wnco.com bob.kneisley@wnco.com leslie.abbott@wnco.com

Howard Kass Vice President, Legal and Government Affairs Benjamin Slocum Director, Legal and Government Affairs US Airways, Inc. howard.kass@usairways.com benjamin.slocum@usairways.com

Jonathan B. Hill J. Parker Erkmann Counsel for JetBlue Airways Corporation jhill@dowlohnes.com perkmann@dowlohnes.com Dan Weiss Managing Director, International and Regulatory Affairs United Continental Holdings, Inc. dan.weiss@united.com

John E. Potter President and Chief Executive Officer Quince Brinkley Vice President and Secretary Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority john.potter@mwaa.com quince.brinkley@mwaa.com

Steve Grossman Executive Director – Chief Executive Officer Jacksonville Aviation Authority steve.grossman@flyjacksonville.com
Mark Kranenburg Director Oklahoma City Department of Airports mark.kranenburg@okc.gov
todd.homan@dot.gov
susan.kurland@dot.gov
esta.rosenberg@dot.gov
barbara.hairston@dot.gov

info@airlineinfo.com