In this task, you are given text for US Congressional and California state bills, your task is to generate a summary for this bill.

Input: Consider Input: SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ''Preservation of Antibiotics for
Medical Treatment Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) In January 2001, a Federal interagency task force--
(A) released an action plan to address the
continuing decline in effectiveness of antibiotics
against common bacterial infections, referred to as
antibiotic resistance;
(B) determined that antibiotic resistance is a
growing menace to all people and poses a serious threat
to public health; and
(C) cautioned that if current trends continue,
treatments for common infections will become
increasingly limited and expensive, and, in some cases,
nonexistent.
(2) Antibiotic resistance, resulting in a reduced number of
effective antibiotics, may significantly impair the ability of
the United States to respond to terrorist attacks involving
bacterial infections or a large influx of hospitalized
patients.
(3)(A) Any overuse or misuse of antibiotics contributes to
the spread of antibiotic resistance, whether in human medicine
or in agriculture.
(B) Recognizing the public health threat caused by
antibiotic resistance, Congress took several steps to curb
antibiotic overuse in human medicine through amendments to the
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.) made by
section 102 of the Public Health Threats and Emergencies Act
(Public Law 106-505, title I; 114 Stat. 2315), but has not yet
addressed antibiotic overuse in agriculture.
(4) In a March 2003 report, the National Academy of
Sciences stated that--
(A) a decrease in antimicrobial use in human
medicine alone will have little effect on the current
situation; and
(B) substantial efforts must be made to decrease
inappropriate overuse in animals and agriculture.
(5) In 2010, the FDA determined that--
(A) 13.1 million kilograms of antibacterial drugs
were sold for use on food animals in the United States
in 2009;
(B) 3.3 million kilograms of antibacterial drugs
were used for human health in 2009; and
(C) therefore, 80 percent of antibacterial drugs
disseminated in the United States in 2009 were sold for
use on food animals, rather than being used for human
health.
(6)(A) Large-scale, voluntary surveys by the Department of
Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service in
1999, 2001, and 2006 revealed that--
(i) 84 percent of grower-finisher swine farms, 83
percent of cattle feedlots, and 84 percent of sheep
farms administer antimicrobials in the feed or water
for health or growth promotion reasons; and
(ii) many of the antimicrobials identified are
identical or closely related to drugs used in human
medicine, including tetracyclines, macrolides,
Bacitracin, penicillins, and sulfonamides; and
(B) these drugs are used in people to treat serious
diseases such as pneumonia, scarlet fever, rheumatic fever,
venereal disease, skin infections, and even pandemics like
malaria and plague, as well as bioterrorism agents like
smallpox and anthrax.
(7) Many scientific studies confirm that the nontherapeutic
use of antibiotics in agricultural animals contributes to the
development of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections in
people.
(8) The periodical entitled ''Clinical Infectious
Diseases'' published a report in June 2002, that--
(A) was based on a 2-year review by experts in
human and veterinary medicine, public health,
microbiology, biostatistics, and risk analysis, of more
than 500 scientific studies on the human health impacts
of antimicrobial use in agriculture; and
(B) recommended that antimicrobial agents should no
longer be used in agriculture in the absence of
disease, but should be limited to therapy for diseased
individual animals and prophylaxis when disease is
documented in a herd or flock.
(9) The United States Geological Survey reported in March
2002 that--
(A) antibiotics were present in 48 percent of the
streams tested nationwide; and
(B) almost half of the tested streams were
downstream from agricultural operations.
(10) An April 1999 study by the General Accounting Office
concluded that resistant strains of 3 microorganisms that cause
food-borne illness or disease in humans (Salmonella,
Campylobacter, and E. coli) are linked to the use of
antibiotics in animals.
(11) Epidemiological research has shown that resistant
Salmonella and Campylobacter infections are associated with
increased numbers of ill patients and bloodstream infections,
and increased death.
(12) In 2010, the peer-reviewed journal Molecular Cell
published a study demonstrating that low-dosage use of
antibiotics causes a dramatic increase in genetic mutation,
raising new concerns about the agricultural practice of using
low-dosage antibiotics in order to stimulate growth promotion
and routinely prevent disease in unhealthy conditions.
(13)(A) In January 2003, Consumer Reports published test
results on poultry products bought in grocery stores nationwide
showing disturbingly high levels of Campylobacter and
Salmonella bacteria that were resistant to the antibiotics used
to treat food-borne illnesses.
(B) The Food and Drug Administration's National
Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System routinely finds that
retail meat products are contaminated with bacteria (including
the foodborne pathogens Campylobacter and Salmonella) that are
resistant to antibiotics important in human medicine.
(C) In December 2007, the USDA issued a fact sheet on the
recently recognized link between antimicrobial drug use in
animals and Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureas (MRSA)
infections in humans.
(14) In October 2001, the New England Journal of Medicine
published an editorial urging a ban on nontherapeutic use of
medically important antibiotics in animals.
(15)(A) In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences noted
that antibiotic-resistant bacteria generate a minimum of
$4,000,000,000 to $5,000,000,000 in costs to United States
society and individuals yearly.
(B) In 2009, Cook County Hospital and the Alliance for
Prudent Use of Antibiotics estimated that the total health care
cost of antibiotic resistant infections in the United States
was between $16,600,000,000 and $26,000,000,000 annually.
(16) The American Medical Association, the American Public
Health Association, the National Association of County and City
Health Officials, and the National Campaign for Sustainable
Agriculture are among the more than 300 organizations
representing health, consumer, agricultural, environmental,
humane, and other interests that have supported enactment of
legislation to phase out nontherapeutic use in farm animals of
medically important antibiotics.
(17) In 2010, the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration
testified that the Danish ban of the non-therapeutic use of
antibiotics in food animal production resulted in a marked
reduction in antimicrobial resistance in multiple bacterial
species, including Campylobacter and Enterococci.
(18) In 2009, the Congressional Research Service concluded
that restrictions overseas on the use of antimicrobial drugs in
the production of livestock could impact U.S. export markets
for livestock and poultry.
(19) The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
301 et seq.)--
(A) requires that all drugs be shown to be safe
before the drugs are approved; and
(B) places the burden on manufacturers to account
for health consequences and prove safety.
(20)(A) The Food and Drug Administration recently modified
the drug approval process for antibiotics to recognize the
development of resistant bacteria as an important aspect of
safety, but most antibiotics currently used in animal
production systems for nontherapeutic purposes were approved
before the Food and Drug Administration began considering
resistance during the drug-approval process.
(B) The Food and Drug Administration has not established a
schedule for reviewing those existing approvals.
(21) Certain non-routine uses of antibiotics in animal
agriculture are legitimate to prevent animal disease.
(22) An April 2004 study by the General Accounting Office--
(A) concluded that Federal agencies do not collect
the critical data on antibiotic use in animals that
they need to support research on human health risks;
and
(B) recommends that the Department of Agriculture
and the Department of Health and Human Services develop
and implement a plan to collect data on antibiotic use
in animals.

SEC. 3. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to preserve the effectiveness of
medically important antibiotics used in the treatment of human and
animal diseases by reviewing the safety of certain antibiotics for
nontherapeutic purposes in food-producing animals.

SEC. 4. PROOF OF SAFETY OF CRITICAL ANTIMICROBIAL ANIMAL DRUGS.

(a) Definitions.--Section 201 of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321) is amended by adding at the end the
following:
''(ss) Critical Antimicrobial Animal Drug.--The term 'critical
antimicrobial animal drug' means a drug that--
''(1) is intended for use in food-producing animals; and
''(2) is composed wholly or partly of--
''(A) any kind of penicillin, tetracycline,
macrolide, lincosamide, streptogramin, aminoglycoside,
or sulfonamide; or
''(B) any other drug or derivative of a drug that
is used in humans or intended for use in humans to
treat or prevent disease or infection caused by
microorganisms.
''(tt) Nontherapeutic Use.--The term 'nontherapeutic use', with
respect to a critical antimicrobial animal drug, means any use of the
drug as a feed or water additive for an animal in the absence of any
clinical sign of disease in the animal for growth promotion, feed
efficiency, weight gain, routine disease prevention, or other routine
purpose.''.
(b) Applications Pending or Submitted After Enactment.--Section
512(d)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C.
360b(d)(1)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence--
(A) in subparagraph (H), by striking ''or'' at the
end;
(B) in subparagraph (I), by inserting ''or'' at the
end; and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (I) the
following:
''(J) with respect to a critical antimicrobial
animal drug or a drug of the same chemical class as a
critical antimicrobial animal drug, the applicant has
failed to demonstrate that there is a reasonable
certainty of no harm to human health due to the
development of antimicrobial resistance that is
attributable, in whole or in part, to the
nontherapeutic use of the drug; or''; and
(2) in the second sentence, by striking ''(A) through (I)''
and inserting ''(A) through (J)''.
(c) Phased Elimination of Nontherapeutic Use in Animals of Critical
Antimicrobial Animal Drugs Important for Human Health.--Section 512 of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
''(q) Phased Elimination of Nontherapeutic Use in Animals of
Critical Antimicrobial Animal Drugs Important for Human Health.--
''(1) Applicability.--This subsection applies to the
nontherapeutic use in a food-producing animal of a drug--
''(A)(i) that is a critical antimicrobial animal
drug; or
''(ii) that is of the same chemical class as a
critical antimicrobial animal drug; and
''(B)(i) for which there is in effect an approval
of an application or an exemption under subsection (b),
(i), or (j) of section 505; or
''(ii) that is otherwise marketed for use.
''(2) Withdrawal.--The Secretary shall withdraw the
approval of a nontherapeutic use in food-producing animals
described in paragraph (1) on the date that is 2 years after
the date of enactment of this subsection unless--
''(A) before the date that is 2 years after the
date of the enactment of this subsection, the Secretary
makes a final written determination that the holder of
the approved application has demonstrated that there is
a reasonable certainty of no harm to human health due
to the development of antimicrobial resistance that is
attributable in whole or in part to the nontherapeutic
use of the drug; or
''(B) before the date specified in subparagraph
(A), the Secretary makes a final written determination
under this subsection, with respect to a risk analysis
of the drug conducted by the Secretary and other
relevant information, that there is a reasonable
certainty of no harm to human health due to the
development of antimicrobial resistance that is
attributable in whole or in part to the nontherapeutic
use of the drug.
''(3) Exemptions.--Except as provided in paragraph (5), if
the Secretary grants an exemption under section 505(i) for a
drug that is a critical antimicrobial animal drug, the
Secretary shall rescind each approval of a nontherapeutic use
in a food-producing animal of the critical antimicrobial animal
drug, or of a drug in the same chemical class as the critical
antimicrobial animal drug, as of the date that is 2 years after
the date on which the Secretary grants the exemption.
''(4) Approvals.--Except as provided in paragraph (5), if
an application for a drug that is a critical antimicrobial
animal drug is submitted to the Secretary under section 505(b),
the Secretary shall rescind each approval of a nontherapeutic
use in a food-producing animal of the critical antimicrobial
animal drug, or of a drug in the same chemical class as the
critical antimicrobial animal drug, as of the date that is 2
years after the date on which the application is submitted to
the Secretary.
''(5) Exception.--Paragraph (3) or (4), as the case may be,
shall not apply if--
''(A) before the date on which approval would be
rescinded under that paragraph, the Secretary makes a
final written determination that the holder of the
application for the approved nontherapeutic use has
demonstrated that there is a reasonable certainty of no
harm to human health due to the development of
antimicrobial resistance that is attributable in whole
or in part to the nontherapeutic use in the food-
producing animal of the critical antimicrobial animal
drug; or
''(B) before the date specified in subparagraph
(A), the Secretary makes a final written determination
under this subsection, with respect to a risk analysis
of the critical antimicrobial animal drug conducted by
the Secretary and any other relevant information, that
there is a reasonable certainty of no harm to human
health due to the development of antimicrobial
resistance that is attributable in whole or in part to
the nontherapeutic use of the drug.''.

SEC. 5. COMMITTEE HEARINGS ON IMPLEMENTATION.

(a) In General.--The Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House
of Representatives and the Committee on Energy of the Senate shall each
hold a hearing on the implementation by the Commissioner of Food and
Drugs of section 512(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as
added by section 4 of this Act.
(b) Exercise of Rulemaking Authority.--Subsection (a) is enacted--
(1) as an exercise of the rulemaking power of the House of
Representatives and Senate, and, as such, they shall be
considered as part of the rules of the House or Senate (as the
case may be), and such rules shall supersede any other rule of
the House or Senate only to the extent that rule is
inconsistent therewith; and
(2) with full recognition of the constitutional right of
either House to change such rules (so far as relating to the
procedure in such House) at any time, in the same manner, and
to the same extent as in the case of any other rule of the
House or Senate.

Output: Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act of 2011 - Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to deny an application for a new animal drug that is a critical antimicrobial animal drug unless the applicant demonstrates that there is a reasonably certainty of no harm to human health due to the development of antimicrobial resistance attributable to the nontherapeutic use of the drug. Defines "critical antimicrobial animal drug" as a drug intended for use in food-producing animals that contains specified antibiotics or other drugs used in humans to treat or prevent disease or infection caused by microorganisms.

Requires the Secretary to withdraw approval of a nontherapeutic use of such drugs in food-producing animals two years after the date of enactment of this Act unless certain safety requirements are met. Directs specified congressional committees to hold hearings on the implementation of such a withdrawal of approval.

Input: Consider Input: SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ''Safe Roads for America Act of
2011''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds the following:
(1) An individual who is 65 years of age needs 4 times the
amount of light to see at night as compared to an individual
who is 25 years of age.
(2) The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety projects that by
2030 1 in every 4 drivers will be 65 years of age or older.
(3) Increasing the retroreflectivity and size of traffic
signs provides added decision time for older drivers.
(4) Increasing the retroreflectivity and size of traffic
signs also provides for faster response time by emergency
medical technicians and police and fire personnel by increasing
their ability to read and understand signs and reduce travel
time to a site.
(5) More than 50 percent of traffic accidents resulting in
fatalities occur at night, and increased retroreflectivity of
traffic signs addresses this issue.
(6) In 2007, the following deadlines were established in
the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices in response to a
statutory requirement from Congress:
(A) By January 22, 2012, roadway owners must adopt
a plan to ensure that their signs meet minimum levels
of retroreflectivity.
(B) By January 22, 2015, regulatory and warning
signs and post-mounted signs must meet minimum levels
of retroreflectivity.
(C) By January 22, 2018, overhead and street name
signs must meet minimum levels of retroreflectivity.
(7) The Federal Highway Administration has estimated that
the cost for making these retroreflectivity improvements for
signage throughout the United States is $37,000,000 over a 10-
year period.
(8) At no point must a roadway owner replace a sign that
meets the minimum levels of retroreflectivity.
(9) The United States is currently experiencing the worst
economic conditions since the Great Depression.
(10) As a result, local governments across the United
States are experiencing one of the most economically
challenging times in history, with available revenues unable to
match the costs of services demanded by the public.
(11) To compensate for depressed revenue collections during
the economic downturn, counties and cities are adopting severe
cost-cutting measures, such as laying off and furloughing
employees (including public safety personnel), cancelling or
postponing planned capital improvements, deferring necessary
maintenance, cutting equipment inventories, and in some cases
declaring bankruptcy.
(12) The costs of employee benefits continue to rise and
local governments have to devote more resources to keep up with
inflation.
(13) States are passing along the costs of services to
local governments as a method to balance their budgets.
(14) The outlook for recovery appears to be at least 5
years away given that, even when the economy recovers, local
governments experience a delay in increased tax collections due
to the nature of property tax collections.

SEC. 3. RETROREFLECTIVITY LEVEL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO TRAFFIC SIGNS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of Transportation shall modify the
target compliance dates for minimum retroreflectivity level standards
set forth in section 2A.08 of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices for Streets and Highways, 2009 Edition (incorporated by
reference in subpart F of part 655 of title 23, Code of Federal
Regulations) so that the following target compliance dates apply:
(1) A target compliance date of January 22, 2012, for
implementation and continued use of an assessment or management
method that is designed to maintain traffic sign
retroreflectivity at or above the established minimum levels.
(2) A target compliance date of January 22, 2018, for
replacement of regulatory, warning, and post-mounted guide
(except street name) signs that are identified using the
assessment or management method as failing to meet the
established minimum levels.
(3) A target compliance date of January 22, 2021, for
replacement of street name signs and overhead guide signs that
are identified using the assessment or management method as
failing to meet the established minimum levels.
(b) Effect on Proposed Regulations.--The Secretary shall revise the
notice of proposed amendments published in the Federal Register on
August 31, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 54156), to incorporate the target
compliance dates specified in subsection (a).
(c) Funding.--The Secretary may use funds available to the
Secretary to carry out this section notwithstanding any funding
limitation enacted before the date of enactment of this Act.

SEC. 4. HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

(a) Highway Signs and Pavement Markings.--Section 148(a)(3)(B)(xi)
of title 23, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
''(xi) Installation, replacement, and
upgrade of highway signs and pavement markings,
including any upgrade of materials and the
implementation of any assessment or management
method designed to meet a State-established
performance standard, Federal regulation, or
requirement contained in the Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices relating to minimum
levels of retroreflectivity.''.
(b) Maintaining Minimum Levels of Retroreflectivity.--
(1) Definition.--Section 148(a) of such title is amended by
adding at the end the following:
''(7) Project to maintain minimum levels of
retroreflectivity.--The term 'project to maintain minimum
levels of retroreflectivity' means a project undertaken
pursuant to the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
requiring public agencies to use an assessment or management
method that is designed to maintain highway sign or pavement
marking retroreflectivity at or above prescribed minimum
levels.''.
(2) Eligible projects.--Section 148(d)(1) of such title is
amended--
(A) by striking ''or'' at the end of subparagraph
(A);
(B) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as
subparagraph (C); and
(C) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the
following:
''(B) any project to maintain minimum levels of
retroreflectivity on a public road, whether or not such
project is included in the State strategic highway
safety plan; or''.
(3) Increased federal share.--The first sentence of section
120(c)(1) of such title is amended by inserting ''maintaining
minimum levels of retroreflectivity of highway signs or
pavement markings,'' after ''signalization,''.
(c) Standards for Projects To Upgrade Highway Signs and Pavement
Markings.--Section 148 of such title is amended by adding at the end
the following:
''(i) Standards for Projects To Upgrade Highway Signs and Pavement
Markings.--The Secretary shall issue standards for the use of funds
apportioned to a State under section 104(b)(5) for highway safety
improvement projects to upgrade highway signs and pavement markings in
order to meet or exceed minimum maintained levels of retroreflectivity.
Such standards shall ensure that the projects are carried out so as to
meet defined criteria, consistent with other safety upgrades, using a
systematic approach. Such standards shall permit the use of the funds
for an initial upgrade of highway signs and pavement markings in the
State, but shall prohibit the funds from being used for maintenance
activities.''.

Output: Safe Roads for America Act of 2011 - Requires the Secretary of Transportation to modify the target compliance dates for the following minimum retroreflectivity level standards: (1) implementation and continued use of an assessment or management method that is designed to maintain traffic sign retroreflectivity at or above the established minimum levels; (2) replacement of regulatory, warning, and post-mounted guide (except street name) signs identified using the assessment or management method as failing to meet the established minimum levels; and (3) replacement of street name signs and overhead guide signs that are identified using the assessment or management method as failing to meet the established minimum levels.

Requires the Secretary to revise the notice of proposed amendments published in the Federal Register on August 31, 2011, to incorporate the new target compliance dates.

Includes measures designed to meet a state-established performance standard, federal regulation, or requirement contained in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices relating to minimum levels of retroreflectivity as projects for purposes of the highway safety improvement program.

Allows a maximum 100% federal share of the costs of construction related to maintaining minimum levels of retroreflectivity of highway signs or pavement markings.

Directs the Secretary to issue standards for the use of funds apportioned to a state for highway safety improvement projects to upgrade highway signs and pavement markings in order to meet or exceed minimum maintained levels of retroreflectivity. Requires such standards to prohibit fund use for maintenance activities.

Input: Consider Input: SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ''Summer Travel Delay Prevention
Act''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Flight delays and cancellations hit all time highs at
major airports nationwide during the summer of 2007, when--
(A) 20 percent more passengers were affected by
flight delays than were affected during the previous
summer;
(B) nearly 621,000 flights were delayed, an
increase of 15 percent compared with approximately
539,000 delayed flights in the summer of 2006;
(C) such delays lasted an average of 60 minutes, a
7 percent increase from the average length of flight
delays in the previous summer;
(D) flight cancellations increased to 48,000, from
37,000 in the summer of 2006, affecting nearly
3,200,000 passengers; and
(E) on board tarmac delays lasting at least 1 hour
increased by 25 percent compared with the summer of
2006, affecting over 2,000,000 passengers.
(2) The Inspector General of the Department of
Transportation--
(A) identified the New York area as 1 of 3
saturation points across the country that impacted
delays nationwide;
(B) reported that the biggest airspace bottlenecks
during the summer of 2007 were at the 3 major New York
area airports and the surrounding airspace, accounting
for more than /3\ of the flight delays nationwide;
and
(C) after analyzing the likelihood of having more
or less delays at 5 of the busiest airports based on
current traffic and existing systems, determined that
the significant increase in the peak travel schedule at
LaGuardia Airport in the summer 2008 has the potential
to worsen delay conditions.
(3) The 3 airports in the New York area, Kennedy Airport
(JFK), LaGuardia Airport, and Newark Liberty Airport--
(A) are the 3 worst airports across the country in
terms of on-time arrivals, with only 59 percent of
flights arriving on time at JFK and LaGuardia;
(B) are anticipated to experience massive delays in
the summer of 2008; and
(C) have a ripple effect on the national airspace
system.
(4) Between October 2006 and July 2007 at JFK, average
daily operations increased by 23 percent and arrival delays of
more than 1 hour increased by 114 percent, to more than 2,300.
(5) The Federal Aviation Administration estimates that the
number of passengers on commercial aircraft will increase by 36
percent between 2007 and 2015, to a total of 1,000,000,000
passenger trips.
(6) Next generation air traffic control technology has the
ability to significantly improve congestion problems, but the
Federal Aviation Administration has repeatedly delayed its
implementation, currently estimated to take place in 2025, 11
years later than originally predicted.
(7) In addition to technology improvements, proven tools
are available to reduce airspace congestion and address the
massive delays.
(8) During the Thanksgiving holidays in 2007, military
airspace off the East Coast was opened for commercial use,
significantly reducing holiday delays and congestion by
creating an additional lane for traffic.
(9) Empowering a director to oversee and coordinate
operations in congested airspace has effectively reduced delays
in South Florida, where some air carriers improved arrival
performance by 44 percent and reduced delays lasting more than
90 minutes by 69 percent.

SEC. 3. PLAN FOR SHARING MILITARY AND SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE.

The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration, in
consultation with the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of
Defense, shall develop--
(1) a plan to open up special use airspace for additional
lanes of air traffic at specific choke points during the summer
of 2008; and
(2) a permanent plan to share the military airspace off the
eastern coast of the United States, which--
(A) creates a corridor for commercial flights
seeking to avoid inclement weather or excessive air
traffic; and
(B) provides for immediate reclamation of such
airspace by the Department of Defense in the event of a
national emergency.

SEC. 4. NEW YORK INTEGRATION OFFICE.

(a) Budget Authority.--The Director of the New York Integration
Office of the Federal Aviation Administration is authorized to transfer
any amounts appropriated for the operations of such office to any
function that the Director determines to be necessary to carry out any
flight delay reduction project involving the airspace in the New York-
New Jersey region.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Federal Aviation Administration such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the responsibilities of the New York Integration
Office, including hiring necessary support staff.

SEC. 5. AVIATION TRAVELER TASK FORCE.

(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) While aircraft safety should be a top priority for the
Federal Aviation Administration and air carriers, compliance
with Federal safety regulations should not come at the expense
of passenger convenience.
(2) One of the chief complaints of customers left stranded
during April 2008 by massive cancellations was the lack of
notification about the status of their flights.
(3) Commercial air flight cancellations were announced with
little advance notice, causing many travelers to discover that
their flight was cancelled after they arrived at the airport.
(4) Air carriers have also reduced the number of flights on
their schedules, which has frustrated consumers' attempts to
find replacement flights on other air carriers.
(b) Establishment.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall establish an Aviation Traveler Task Force,
comprised of Federal Aviation Administration employees and
representatives of the commercial aviation industry.
(c) Functions.--The Aviation Traveler Task Force shall--
(1) clarify interpretations of safety directives issued by
the Federal Aviation Administration with which air carriers
will soon need to comply;
(2) develop contingency plans in the event that additional
aircraft--
(A) are found to be out of compliance with such
safety directives; and
(B) need to be grounded;
(3) generate ideas for the best way to notify passengers on
a massive scale that their flights have been cancelled; and
(4) design a notification system to alert passengers of
potential service disruptions.
(d) Inspection Plans.--The Administrator of the Federal Aviation
Administration shall ensure that any standardized plan to perform
inspections of commercial aircraft includes a plan to reduce groundings
and other consequences resulting from such inspections.
Output: Summer Travel Delay Prevention Act - Directs the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to develop: (1) a plan for opening up to commercial flights special use airspace for additional lanes of air traffic at specific choke points; and (2) a permanent plan for sharing military airspace off the eastern U.S. coast by such flights.

Authorizes the Director of the New York Integration Office of the FAA to transfer appropriated amounts for Office operations to flight delay reduction projects in airspace over the New York-New Jersey region.

Requires the FAA Administrator to establish an Aviation Traveler Task Force to: (1) clarify interpretations of FAA safety directives with which air carriers will soon need to comply; (2) develop contingency plans in the event that additional aircraft do not comply with such safety directives and need to be grounded; and (3) design a notification system to alert passengers of potential service disruptions.