REPORT " ! 2D Session HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES 107–722

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

REPORT 107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! 2d Session HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 107–722 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2003 OCTOBER 7, 2002.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed Mr. ROGERS of Kentucky, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 5559] The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003. INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT Page number Bill Report Narrative summary of Committee action ................................................. ........ 2 Program, project, and activity ................................................................... ........ 3 Title I—Department of Transportation: Office of the Secretary ........................................................................ 2 5 Transportation Security Administration ........................................... 5 16 Coast Guard ......................................................................................... 7 30 Federal Aviation Administration ....................................................... 12 42 Federal Highway Administration ...................................................... 17 77 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration .................................. 19 103 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ............................ 21 108 Federal Railroad Administration ....................................................... 23 117 Federal Transit Administration ......................................................... 26 129 Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation ......................... 35 178 Research and Special Programs Administration .............................. 36 180 Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 37 185 Surface Transportation Board ........................................................... 38 187 82–170 VerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6659 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722 2 Title II—Related Agencies: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board ....... 39 188 National Transportation Safety Board .............................................. 39 189 Title III—General Provisions .................................................................... 40 190 House Report Requirements: Appropriations not authorized by law ............................................... ........ 208 Changes in existing law ..................................................................... ........ 202 Comparison with budget resolution ................................................... ........ 208 Constitutional authority ..................................................................... ........ 192 Financial assistance to state and local governments ....................... ........ 209 Five-year projections of outlays ......................................................... ........ 209 Ramseyer ............................................................................................. ........ 194 Rescissions ........................................................................................... ........ 209 Transfers of funds ............................................................................... ........ 193 Tabular summary of the bill ..................................................................... ........ 212 SUMMARY AND MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BILL The accompanying bill would provide $21,746,930,000 in new budget (obligational) authority for the programs of the Department of Transportation and related agencies, $379,750,000 less than the $22,126,680,000 requested in the budget. Selected major rec- ommendations in the accompanying bill are: (1) An appropriation of $13,599,225,000 for the Federal Avia- tion Administration, consistent with provisions of AIR–21; (2) A limitation of $3,400,000,000 for grants-in-aid for air- ports, as required by provisions of AIR–21; (3) An appropriation of $4,305,456,000 for operating ex- penses of the Coast Guard; (4) An appropriation of $762,476,000 for grants to the Na- tional Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), to cover cap- ital and operating expenses; (5) An appropriation of $5,146,000,000 for capital and oper- ating costs of the Transportation Security Administration; (6) A total of $181,031,000 for the office of the secretary, in- cluding $25,000,000 for acquisition of a new DOT headquarters building; (7) Highway program obligation limitations of $27,653,143,000, consistent with provisions of TEA–21 and other existing legislation; (8) Transit program obligations of $7,226,000,000, consistent with provisions of TEA–21; and (9) A total of $367,411,000 for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, including $190,000,000 for the national motor carrier safety program. THE EFFECT OF GUARANTEED SPENDING Over the objections of the Appropriations and Budget Commit- tees, in 1998 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two new additional spending categories or ‘‘firewalls’’, the highway cat- egory and the mass transit category. In March 2000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR–21) provided a similar treatment for certain aviation pro- grams. Although using different procedures, each of these Acts pro- duced the same results: they significantly raised spending, and they effectively prohibited the Appropriations Committee from re- VerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722 3 ducing those spending levels in the annual appropriations process. As the Committee noted during deliberations on these bills, the Acts essentially created mandatory spending programs within the discretionary caps. This undermines Congressional flexibility to fund other equally important programs, including non-guaranteed transportation programs such as FAA Operations, the Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration and Amtrak. As a result of these Acts, the majority of budgetary resources ad- dressed by this bill are either ‘‘guaranteed’’ by federal legislation and/or protected by unprecedented points of order passed into law at the initiative of the authorization committees. The Committee will continue to do all it can in this environment to produce a balanced bill which provides adequately for all modes of transportation. However, clearly the use of spending guarantees to ‘‘wall-off’’ parts of the discretionary budget for particular con- stituencies cause both transportation and non-transportation pro- grams all across the government to be under more severe budget pressure, in order to keep the overall budget in balance. The effect of the guarantees will especially leave its mark on non-covered transportation programs and activities, since they must compete within this bill for leftover funding. The Committee continues to be concerned that bills such as TEA–21 and AIR–21 skew transpor- tation priorities inappropriately, by providing a banquet of in- creases to highway, transit, and airport spending while leaving safety- and security-related operations in the FAA, Coast Guard, Transportation Security Administration, and FRA to scramble for the remaining crumbs. TABULAR SUMMARY A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year 2002 and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year 2003 com- pared with the budget estimates is included at the end of this re- port. COMMITTEE HEARINGS The Committee has conducted extensive hearings on the pro- grams and projects provided for in the Department of Transpor- tation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2003. These hearings are contained in eight published volumes. The Committee received testimony from officials of the executive branch, Members of Congress, officials of the General Accounting Office, officials of state and local governments, and private citizens. The bill recommendations for fiscal year 2003 have been devel- oped after careful consideration of all the information available to the Committee. PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY During fiscal year 2003, for the purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained in the accom- panying bill, the terms ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ shall mean any item for which a dollar amount is contained in an appropria- tions Act (including joint resolutions providing continuing appro- priations) or accompanying reports of the House and Senate Com- VerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722 4 mittees on Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports and joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. This definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget (obligational) authority is provided, as well as to capital investment grants, Federal Transit Administration. In addition, the percentage reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to funds appro- priated for facilities and equipment, Federal Aviation Administra- tion, and for acquisition, construction, and improvements, Coast Guard, shall be applied equally to each ‘‘budget
Recommended publications
  • Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report for FY2003 and California Implications -- February 27, 2003
    THE CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE FOR FEDERAL POLICY RESEARCH 419 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, D.C. 20003 202-546-3700 Fax: 202-546-2390 E-mail: [email protected] Web: http://www.calinst.org SPECIAL REPORT: Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report for FY2003 and California Implications -- February 27, 2003 CONTENTS: On February 12, 2003, congressional negotiators agreed to a Department of Justice .................2 $397.4 billion FY03 Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report, H.J. Res. 2, which incorporates the eleven unfinished appropriations measures Department of Commerce ..............3 for non-military domestic spending into one package. After four months Department of the Interior ..............4 passing temporary stop-gap spending measures to maintain government Army Corps of Engineers ..............6 operations, the House passed the bill on February 13 by a vote of 338-83, after the Motion to Recommit failed by a largely party line vote of 193- Department of Energy .................8 226. The Senate passed the Conference Report on February 14. Department of Labor ..................8 The final funding level is about $11.5 billion more than the Department of Health and Human Services $385.9 billion limit the White House had imposed on Congress. In order ................................9 to offset additional spending for education and other programs, the bill Department of Education ............. 12 includes a 0.65 percent across-the-board spending cut. However, Head Department of Transportation ......... 15 Start, the Space Shuttle program, VA medical care, and the Women Infants and Children’s (WIC) program are exempted from the cut. Department of Agriculture ........... 20 The following updates the preliminary analysis that the Department of Veteran Affairs .......
    [Show full text]
  • Cleveland/Detroit Study Team Final Report
    Federal Aviation Administration Cleveland/Detroit Metroplex Optimization of Airspace and Procedures Study Team Final Report May 2014 By Cleveland/Detroit Metroplex Study Team Table of Contents 1 Background 1 2 Purpose of the Metroplex Study Team 2 3 Cleveland/Detroit Metroplex Study Team Analysis Process 3 3.1 Five Step Process 3 3.2 Cleveland/Detroit Study Area Scope 5 3.3 Assumptions and Constraints 6 3.4 Assessment Methodology 6 3.4.1 Track Data Selected for Analyses 7 3.4.2 Analysis and Design Tools 9 3.4.3 Determining the Number of Operations and Modeled Fleet Mix 10 3.4.4 Determining Percent of RNAV Capable Operations by Airport 12 3.4.5 Profile Analyses 13 3.4.6 Cost to Carry (CTC) 13 3.4.7 Benefits Metrics 13 3.5 Key Considerations for Evaluation of Impacts and Risks 15 4 Identified Issues and Proposed Solutions 16 4.1 Design Concepts 16 4.2 CLE Procedures 19 4.2.1 CLE Arrivals 20 4.2.2 CLE Departures 34 4.2.3 CLE SAT Departures Issues 43 4.2.4 Summary of Potential Benefits for CLE 44 4.3 DTW Procedures 45 4.3.1 DTW Arrivals 45 4.3.2 DTW Departures 72 4.3.3 Summary of Potential Benefits for DTW 85 4.4 D21 Airspace Issues 86 4.5 T-Route Notional Designs 87 4.6 Military Issues 88 4.6.1 180th FW Issues 88 4.6.2 KMTC Issues 89 4.7 Industry Issues 90 4.8 Out of Scope Issues 90 4.9 Additional D&I Considerations 91 5 Summary of Benefits 92 5.1 Qualitative Benefits 92 5.1.1 Near-Term Impacts 92 i 5.1.2 Long-Term Impacts to Industry 93 5.2 Quantitative Benefits 93 Appendix A Acronyms 95 Appendix B PBN Toolbox 99 ii List of Figures Figure 1.
    [Show full text]
  • (Asos) Implementation Plan
    AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVING SYSTEM (ASOS) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN VAISALA CEILOMETER - CL31 November 14, 2008 U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Weather Service / Office of Operational Systems/Observing Systems Branch National Weather Service / Office of Science and Technology/Development Branch Table of Contents Section Page Executive Summary............................................................................ iii 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................... 1 1.1 Background.......................................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose................................................................................. 2 1.3 Scope.................................................................................... 2 1.4 Applicable Documents......................................................... 2 1.5 Points of Contact.................................................................. 4 2.0 Pre-Operational Implementation Activities ............................ 6 3.0 Operational Implementation Planning Activities ................... 6 3.1 Planning/Decision Activities ............................................... 7 3.2 Logistic Support Activities .................................................. 11 3.3 Configuration Management (CM) Activities....................... 12 3.4 Operational Support Activities ............................................ 12 4.0 Operational Implementation (OI) Activities .........................
    [Show full text]
  • CARES ACT GRANT AMOUNTS to AIRPORTS (Pursuant to Paragraphs 2-4) Detailed Listing by State, City and Airport
    CARES ACT GRANT AMOUNTS TO AIRPORTS (pursuant to Paragraphs 2-4) Detailed Listing By State, City And Airport State City Airport Name LOC_ID Grand Totals AK Alaskan Consolidated Airports Multiple [individual airports listed separately] AKAP $16,855,355 AK Adak (Naval) Station/Mitchell Field Adak ADK $30,000 AK Akhiok Akhiok AKK $20,000 AK Akiachak Akiachak Z13 $30,000 AK Akiak Akiak AKI $30,000 AK Akutan Akutan 7AK $20,000 AK Akutan Akutan KQA $20,000 AK Alakanuk Alakanuk AUK $30,000 AK Allakaket Allakaket 6A8 $20,000 AK Ambler Ambler AFM $30,000 AK Anaktuvuk Pass Anaktuvuk Pass AKP $30,000 AK Anchorage Lake Hood LHD $1,053,070 AK Anchorage Merrill Field MRI $17,898,468 AK Anchorage Ted Stevens Anchorage International ANC $26,376,060 AK Anchorage (Borough) Goose Bay Z40 $1,000 AK Angoon Angoon AGN $20,000 AK Aniak Aniak ANI $1,052,884 AK Aniak (Census Subarea) Togiak TOG $20,000 AK Aniak (Census Subarea) Twin Hills A63 $20,000 AK Anvik Anvik ANV $20,000 AK Arctic Village Arctic Village ARC $20,000 AK Atka Atka AKA $20,000 AK Atmautluak Atmautluak 4A2 $30,000 AK Atqasuk Atqasuk Edward Burnell Sr Memorial ATK $20,000 AK Barrow Wiley Post-Will Rogers Memorial BRW $1,191,121 AK Barrow (County) Wainwright AWI $30,000 AK Beaver Beaver WBQ $20,000 AK Bethel Bethel BET $2,271,355 AK Bettles Bettles BTT $20,000 AK Big Lake Big Lake BGQ $30,000 AK Birch Creek Birch Creek Z91 $20,000 AK Birchwood Birchwood BCV $30,000 AK Boundary Boundary BYA $20,000 AK Brevig Mission Brevig Mission KTS $30,000 AK Bristol Bay (Borough) Aleknagik /New 5A8 $20,000 AK
    [Show full text]
  • The 2014 Regional Transportation Plan Promotes a More Efficient
    CHAPTER 5 STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS – VERSION 5 CHAPTER 5 STRATEGIC INVESTMENTS INTRODUCTION This chapter sets forth plans of action for the region to pursue and meet identified transportation needs and issues. Planned investments are consistent with the goals and policies of the plan, the Sustainable Community Strategy element (see chapter 4) and must be financially constrained. These projects are listed in the Constrained Program of Projects (Table 5-1) and are modeled in the Air Quality Conformity Analysis. The 2014 Regional Transportation Plan promotes Forecast modeling methods in this Regional Transportation a more efficient transportation Plan primarily use the “market-based approach” based on demographic data and economic trends (see chapter 3). The system that calls for fully forecast modeling was used to analyze the strategic funding alternative investments in the combined action elements found in this transportation modes, while chapter.. emphasizing transportation demand and transporation Alternative scenarios are not addressed in this document; they are, however, addressed and analyzed for their system management feasibility and impacts in the Environmental Impact Report approaches for new highway prepared for the 2014 Regional Transportation Plan, as capacity. required by the California Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15126(f) and 15126.6(a)). From this point, the alternatives have been predetermined and projects that would deliver the most benefit were selected. The 2014 Regional Transportation Plan promotes a more efficient transportation system that calls for fully funding alternative transportation modes, while emphasizing transportation demand and transporation system management approaches for new highway capacity. The Constrained Program of Projects (Table 5-1) includes projects that move the region toward a financially constrained and balanced system.
    [Show full text]
  • Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
    Napa County Airport Land Use Commission Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Calistoga Gllderport NAPA COUNTY AIRPORT [AND USE COMMISSION Daniel M. Jonas, Chairman (1989-91) Kathryn J. Winter, Chairperson (1991-92) Tony Holzhauer, Chairman (1 992-94) Mary E. Handel, Chairperson (1 994-95, 1998) John W. Whitridge, Ill, Chairman (1995-96) Juliana Inman, Chairperson (1996-98) Jim King, Chairman (1 998-2000) COMMISSION STAFF Jeffrey R. Redding, Executive Officer Michael Miller, Deputy Planning Director/ALUC Staff Laura J. Anderson, Deputy County Counsel SHUT[ MOEN ASSOCIATES STAFF Michael A. Shutt, Principal David P. Dietz, Director of Planning Projects Coleen AL more, Word Processing and Publication Todd Eroh, Graphics Technician Revised 12/15/99 Table of Contents PART I — INTRODUCTION 1 — INTRODUCTION PURPOSE 1-1 ROLE 1—1 Napa County Airport Land Use Commission 1-2 AUTHORITY 1-2 RELATIONSHIP TO LOCAL PLANS 1-2 Overruling 1-4 GENERAL APPROACH 1-4 ORGANIZATION OF THE PLAN 1-5 2 — COMPATIBILITY CONCERNS NOISE IMPACTS 2-1 Assessment of Airport Impacts 2-1 Noise Compatibility Concepts 2-2 FLIGHT HAZARDS 2-4 Assessing Hazards to Flight 2-4 Limiting Flight Hazards 2-4 SAFETY 2-5 Assessing Safety mpacts 2-5 Limiting Risks of injury or Damage 2-5 OVERFLIGHT IMPACTS 2-6 Assessing Overfligh: Impacts 2-6 Overflight Compatibility Concepts 2-7 PART III * POLICIES, PLANS, AND CRITERIA 3— POLICIES SCOPE OF REVIEW 3-1 Geographic Area o’ Concern Types of Airport Impacts 3-1 Types of Actions Reviewed 3-2 Review Process 3-3 PRIMARY REVIEW POLICIES 3-4 Land
    [Show full text]
  • Advertising Opportunity Guide Print
    AAAE’S AAAE DELIVERS FOR AIRPORT EXECUTIVES NO.1 RATED PRODUCT M AG A Z IN E AAAEAAAE DELIVERSDELIVERS FOR AIRPORTAIRPORT EXECUTIVESEXECUTIVES AAAE DELIVERS FOR AIRPORT EXECUTIVES AAAE DELIVERS FOR AIRPORT EXECUTIVES MMAGAZINE AG A Z IN E MAGAZINE MAGAZINE www.airportmagazine.net | August/September 2015 www.airportmagazine.net | June/July 2015 www.airportmagazine.net | February/March 2015 NEW TECHNOLOGY AIDS AIRPORTS, PASSENGERS NON-AERONAUTICAL REVENUE SECURITYU.S. AIRPORT TRENDS Airport Employee n Beacons Deliver Airport/ Screening Retail Trends Passenger Benefits n Hosting Special Events UAS Security Issues Editorial Board Outlook for 2015 n CEO Interview Airport Diversity Initiatives Risk-Based Security Initiatives ADVERTISING OPPORTUNITY GUIDE PRINT ONLINE DIGITAL MOBILE AIRPORT MAGAZINE AIRPORT MAGAZINE ANDROID APP APPLE APP 2016 | 2016 EDITORIAL MISSION s Airport Magazine enters its 27th year of publication, TO OUR we are proud to state that we continue to produce AVIATION Atop quality articles that fulfill the far-ranging needs of airports, including training information; the lessons airports INDUSTRY have learned on subjects such as ARFF, technology, airfield and FRIENDS terminal improvements; information about the state of the nation’s economy and its impact on air service; news on regulatory and legislative issues; and much more. Further, our magazine continues to make important strides to bring its readers practical and timely information in new ways. In addition to printed copies that are mailed to AAAE members and subscribers, we offer a full digital edition, as well as a free mobile app that can be enjoyed on Apple, Android and Kindle Fire devices. In our app you will discover the same caliber of content you’ve grown to expect, plus mobile-optimized text, embedded rich media, and social media connectivity.
    [Show full text]
  • 646 Subpart C—Private Aircraft
    § 122.15 19 CFR Ch. I (4–1–08 Edition) § 122.15 User fee airports. Location Name (a) Permission to land. The procedures Trenton, New Jer- Trenton Mercer Airport. for obtaining permission to land at a sey. user fee airport are the same proce- Victorville, California Southern California Logistics Airport. Waterford, Michigan Oakland County International Airport. dures as those set forth in § 122.14 for Waukegan, Illinois .. Waukegan Regional Airport. landing rights airports. West Chicago, Illi- Dupage County Airport. (b) List of user fee airports. The fol- nois. Wheeling, Illinois .... Chicago Executive Airport. lowing is a list of user fee airports des- Wilmington, Ohio .... Airborne Air Park Airport. ignated by the Commissioner of Cus- Yoder, Indiana ........ Fort Wayne International Airport. toms in accordance with 19 U.S.C. 58b. Ypsilanti, Michigan Willow Run Airport. The list is subject to change without notice. Information concerning service (c) Withdrawal of designation. The des- at any user fee airport can be obtained ignation as a user fee airport shall be by calling the airport or its authority withdrawn under either of the fol- directly. lowing circumstances: (1) If either Customs or the airport Location Name authority gives 120 days written notice of termination to the other party; or Addison, Texas ...... Addison Airport. Ardmore, Oklahoma Ardmore Industrial Airpark. (2) If any amounts due to be paid to Bakersfield, Cali- Meadows Field Airport. Customs are not paid on a timely basis. fornia. Bedford, Massachu- L.G. Hanscom Field. [T.D. 92–90, 57 FR 43397, Sept. 21, 1992, as setts. amended by T.D. 93–32, 58 FR 25933, Apr.
    [Show full text]
  • JBLM Lark Monitoring Final Report 2015 W911S8-14-2-0026 W911S8-15-2-0001 CNLM Task Orders #G1108, G1118 April 2016
    Habitat and Species Cooperative Restoration Program Joint Base Lewis-McChord Center for Natural Lands Management JBLM Lark Monitoring Final Report 2015 W911S8-14-2-0026 W911S8-15-2-0001 CNLM Task Orders #G1108, G1118 April 2016 Submitted to: Joint Base Lewis-McChord Fish and Wildlife Program Submitted by: Adrian Wolf, Gary Slater and Hannah Anderson Center for Natural Lands Management 120 Union Avenue Southeast Olympia WA, 98501 Phone: 360-584-2538 Joint Base Lewis-McChord is a key military installation and the most important conservation area in the Puget Trough region. The Center for Natural Lands Management strives to assist Joint Base Lewis-McChord in the conservation of its natural resources within the framework of the military training mandate. Joint Base Lewis- McChord and its conservation partners have shared interests because: Healthy natural ecosystems are essential for realistic and sustainable training lands. Rare species recovery throughout the region reduces the burden of recovery on any single landowner or site. Pest plants harm natural areas and reduce their suitability for military training. Page 2 Table of Contents Project Highlights ............................................................................................................................ 5 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 6 1.1 Goals and Objectives ...........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Specifications and Contract Documents
    SPECIFICATIONS AND CONTRACT DOCUMENTS Killeen, Texas Robert Gray Army Airfield (RGAAF) Security Surveillance Improvements at Robert Gray Army Airfield City of Killeen RFP No. 19-10 ISSUED FOR RFP Garver Project No. 17181082 Project Sponsors: Prepared For: City of Killeen November 6, 2018 This page intentionally left blank Security Surveillance Improvements at RGAAF Project No. 17181082 Issued for RFP November 6, 2018 SECTION I. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS Security Surveillance Improvements at RGAAF Project No. 17181082 Issued for RFP November 6, 2018 This page intentionally left blank Security Surveillance Improvements at RGAAF Project No. 17181082 Issued for RFP November 6, 2018 SECTION 000001 CERTIFICATIONS SECURITY SURVEILLANCE IMPROVEMENTS AT ROBERT GRAY ARMY AIRFIELD PROJECT GARVER PROJECT NO. 17181082 CITY OF KILLEEN RFP NO. 19-10 I hereby certify that the applicable portions of this project plans and specifications were prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Engineer under the laws of the State of Texas. APPLICABLE DIVISION OR SEAL AND SIGNATURE PROJECT RESPONSIBILITY Derek Mayo, P.E. General Plans and Specifications Digitally Signed: Matthew LeMay, P.E. Electrical Plans and Specifications Digitally Signed: Security Surveillance Improvements at RGAAF Project No. 17181082 Issued for RFP 000001-1 November 6, 2018 SECTION 000001 CERTIFICATIONS APPLICABLE DIVISION OR SEAL AND SIGNATURE PROJECT RESPONSIBILITY Michael A. Guzik, P.E. CTI Telecom Plans and Specifications Digitally Signed GARVER, LLC CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: TX ENGINEERING REGISTRATION NO. F-5713 TX ARCHITECTURAL REGISTRATION NO. 21507 CTI CERTIFICATE OF AUTHORIZATION: TX REGISTERED CONSULTING FIRM B-17368 Security Surveillance Improvements at RGAAF Project No.
    [Show full text]
  • Updated 5.6.15
    UPDATED 5.6.15 1 Built 1945 Type 35 Airframe used for fatigue testing and not flown, presumed unregistered 2 Built 1945 Type 35 Airframe used for fatigue testing and not flown, presumed unregistered 3 Built 1945 Type 35 Regd. NX80150 Beech Aircraft Corporation, Wichita, Kansas Registered between mid-November 1945 & mid-January 1946 Made the first flight on 22 December 1945 with Vern L Carston in control. Used a 125hp Lycoming G-0290A engine and was fitted with a laminar flow wing Current in the 1947 edition (correct to September 1946) of the ‘Official U.S. Directory of Aircraft Owners’ as owned by Beech Aircraft Corp., Wichita, Kansas and being built 12.45 with a Lycoming O-290-A engine of 125hp. Crashed & written-off during spinning trials cc by 1.7.64 3 NX80150 (Aeroplane via Jack Meaden) 4 Built 1945 Type 35 Regd. NX80040 Beech Aircraft Corporation, Wichita, Kansas As per aircraft record card Was fitted with a Continental engine and a NACA23000 wing Regd. NC80040 Regd. N80040 cc by 1.7.64 On display as N80040 in the National Air & Space Museum, Garber Facility, Silver Hill, Maryland. Often referred to as D-4, which is incorrect. Will move to Steven Udvar-Hazy Center, Chantilly, Virginia in 2007 4 NX80040 In test colours (Flying 1947) Flying Magazine cover December 1947 (Bill Larkins) (Bill Larkins) 4 N80040 4 September 1949 4 N80040 On display in the Smithsonian Institute (W Steeneck via John Wegg) 5 Built 1945 Type 35 Airframe used for fatigue testing and not flown, presumed unregistered Other versions of the story have that two of these aircraft are NX80300 (which made the first flight on 22.12.45 (incorrect) and is D-1 and NX80301 which is possibly D-2.
    [Show full text]
  • CAE Dothan Training Center
    1942-2017 pg. 50 NETWORK l RECOGNITION l VOICE l SUPPORT July 31, 2017 CAE Dothan Training Center Your worldwide training partner of choice MAINTAIN TO TRAIN At DynCorp International, we recognize how critical aviation maintenance is to supporting the Army’s top priority: readiness. Through our ongoing work supporting the Army’s operational helicopter fleet, we maintain more rotary wing aircraft than any other company, and are the trusted partner in supporting initial flight training for the U.S. military. Our innovative techniques and integrated maintenance solutions reduce costs, increase availability, and ensure the readiness necessary to support the Army’s vital rotary wing flight training mission. www.dyn-intl.com ARMY AVIATION Magazine 2 July 31, 2017 DynCorp MaintainToTrain ArmyAviation.indd 1 1/3/17 2:49 PM 28 Contents July 31, 2017, Vol. 66, No. 7 8 TO THE FIELD 8 Aviation Branch Chief Update By MG William K. Gayler 10 Chief Warrant Officer of the Branch Update By CW5 Joseph B. Roland 12 Branch Command Sergeant Major Update By CSM Gregory M. Chambers and LTC Thomas W. Bamford 14 Reserve Components Avation Update By BG Scott R. Morcomb 10 16 128th Aviation Brigade Update By SSG Zachary T. Barber 18 AMRDEC Tech Talk By Mr. Christopher “Kit” Borden 20 Ask the Flight Surgeon By MAJ Sonya Heidt, MD 22 Combat Readiness Center Update By COL James T. Donovan 24 SPECIAL FOCUS — Training 24 Aviation Training Update By COL Brian Walsh, LTC Ken Smith, and Mr. Ron Moring 28 Aviation Training and the ATP Commander By MAJ Trenten J.
    [Show full text]