Secondly, Mr. Chairman, the high density rule for the five airports which goes into effect this Sunday, June 1, was not something which the FAA and the Department of Transportation did lightly in a quick moment. It represented months, and even years, of study. It is a major step. It is the first time in our country that we have, on a formal basis, restricted the airlines and the other users of the airspace in a very definite way. This pending rule, coming this Sunday, had been under discussion, to my knowledge, within the Department for most of the 2 years during which we were operating the restriction on a voluntary basis at Washington National. Having come this close to it, I suspect the Secretary and his staff members will want to see what the effects of this rule will be after this Sunday.

Senator SPONG. I follow your answer and I am going to put into the record two letters: one in 1968, requesting that these proceedings be delayed pending the formulation of a policy; and one dated February 20, 1969, from the CAB, reciting that the Department of Transportation had requested that they not proceed until such policy is recommended from them.

(The documents, referred to, follow :)

Re Washington-Baltimore airport investigation, Docket 18712.

Ross I. NEWMANN, Esq.,
Hearing Examiner,

Civil Aeronautics Board,
Washington, D.C.

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION,
Washington, D.C., February 29, 1968.

DEAR EXAMINER NEWMANN: This letter is to apprise the Examiner and the parties of the Department of Transportation's progress in formulating its policy and procedural recommendations for this investigation.

Resolution of a DOT position is presently awaiting the results of several key studies, primary among which is an analysis of flight delays and air travel demand at each of the three area airports during the test week of November 13, 1967. The information supplied by the air carriers in late December and early January is being programmed into a computer from which it is hoped that meaningful analyses can be made that will be of benefit not only to the Department but also to the Board, the carriers and other interested parties.

Completion of this analysis has been delayed by the omission, on the part of a few air carriers, of some of the detail requested by your Prehearing Conference Report. By direct communication with the air carriers concerned, we are hopeful that any material omissions can be cured promptly.

In addition, the Department is awaiting the results of two studies by outside consultants, to which reference has been made in this proceeding: the Washington-Baltimore Airport Access Survey, being prepared for the DOT Office of High Speed Ground Transportation by ABT Associates, Inc., and the Washington National Airport modernization study, being prepared for the Federal Aviation Administration by Vincent G. Kling & Associates. Currently, we expect delivery of the ABT study in early May and the Kling study in the middle of the same month.

Based upon a reasonable timetable for the completion, review and evaluation of these studies, the Department presently expects to be able to file with you, in late May or early June, a statement of its position that would include the Department's policy and procedural recommendations.

It is therefore respectfully requested that no further prehearing conferences or any other further procedural steps be scheduled until after the Department has had a prior opportunity to file such a statement of its position.

Respectfully yours,

Copies to all parties.

PETER S. CRAIG, Assistant General Counsel, Litigation.

CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Washington, D.C., February 20, 1969.

Hon. JOEL T. BROYHILL,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN BROYHILL: This is in further reply to your communication of January 30, 1969, and that portion of a letter from Dr. William G. Sorrell of Arlington, Virginia, expressing concern over crowded conditions at Washington National Airport, which were forwarded to the Board by the Federal Aviation Administration on February 12.

As you are aware, the Board instituted the Washington-Baltimore Airport Investigation, Docket 18712, to determine what steps should be taken to improve the utilization of Washington National, Dulles and Friendship airports in order to improve air service, to relieve congestion, and otherwise to serve the public interest.

Two prehearing conferences were held in Docket 18712 and a Prehearing Conference Report was issued by the Examiner. On February 29, 1968, the Department of Transportation advised the Examiner that it was in the process of formulating its policy and procedural recommendations in this investigation, and that it would file a statement of position with the Examiner in late May or early June 1968. The Department requested that no further procedural steps be taken until after the Department had an opportunity to file its statement of position, which request was granted by the Examiner.

Although the Department did not file a statement of position with the Board, it did issue a Notice of Rule Making on September 3, 1968, establishing special air traffic rules for five high density airports, including Washington National Airport. This proposed regulation was finalized by the Department on December 3, 1968 (33 FR 17896). At that time, the Department again requested the Examiner to postpone any further procedural steps in Docket 18712 in view of the fact that the DOT regulation, which is scheduled to become effective on April 27, 1969, might resolve the problem of congestion at Washington National Airport. That is the present status of the investigation.

It should be pointed out that the air service from this area is not limited to National Airport as the current schedules of Delta and Eastern show flights from Charlotte also operate into Friendship Airport.

As requested, we are enclosing Dr. Sorrell's letter.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN W. DREGGE,

Director, Community and Congressional Relations. Senator SPONG. May I ask you if you have any idea how long it will be before studying these matters that you have mentioned, how long it will take to do this, in order that we might anticipate some policy from the Department of Transportation?

Mr. SAUNDERS. Mr. Chairman, I really cannot venture a guess on that, because it involves much more than Washington National Airport. It involves the whole country. It involves these other airports. In this connection, the magnitude of the traffic at other airports should be pointed out, because the other four airports to be regulated are much larger, and have much greater traffic than we have at National. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, you may be surprised to hear this. Washington National actually ranks 26th in the country in total aircraft operations. So we are not a busy airport at Washington National when compared to O'Hare, which is first, to Los Angeles International, or to many other airports. The latest figures indicate that the current ranking for Washington National is 26th. For example, Washington National used to be fourth in the country in air carrier operations. It is now ninth in the country.

So there are many other airports involved in this congestion rule, and I am sure that the Department will need to look at the results there, as well as here, and this will take some time.

Senator SPONG. Well, my concern is this, the CAB is the body that from my understanding has control over the scheduling of the flights in and out of the respective airports; is that correct?

Mr. SAUNDERS. Mr. Chairman, I honestly do not know whether that is so or not. I am not sure that the Civil Aeronautics Board is quite sure on this. I have heard the Chairman himself express different points of view on this question. Despite the fact that they instituted a case, the Civil Aeronautics Board traditionally has not gotten into the matter of scheduling at individual airports. There have been a few adequacy of services cases over the years, but they have not gone into this field very extensively.

Senator SPONG. Beyond scheduling, how about limitation of the normal flight?

Mr. SAUNDERS. I would think that the scheduling cases would be even less, historically, at least, in their jurisdiction, based on the record.

Senator SPONG. Well now, with no view to quarreling at all, I am going to try to bring this to a close so we can hear from someone else. The CAB scheduled these hearings and our understanding was that they did so because they had jurisdiction to look into the congestion at National Airport with a view toward making recommendations with regard to the limitation or the scheduling of the airlines in and out of National.

At the March 19 hearings, we had General Quesada before us and he qualified himself by saying that he was the director of an airline. And this is over and beyond his considerable experience in this field.

He said that until someone made the airlines do something, that there was going to be very little done voluntarily by them in terms of limiting the flights in and out of National or scheduling more flights out here at Dulles.

So, therefore, I concluded that these hearings, short of some definite congressional action of some kind, were the best avenue available through which something might be accomplished.

I think that to a degree, the public has been led to believe that. Mr. SAUNDERS. I can understand your point of view, Mr. Chairman. May I hasten to say that obviously I am in no position to speak for the Civil Aeronautics Board. I was trying to answer your questions on a personal opinion basis and to give both sides of the issue as best I could.

But this is opinion and it does not represent the views of the CAB, necessarily. They should speak for themselves. Nor does it represent the Department's views. Rather, it was an attempt to answer the questions as best I could.

Senator SPONG. But insofar as the Department is concerned, and we are submitting to the Department a series of policy questions with regard to this and they have kindly said they were going to answer them; but with respect to the Department, the CAB is presently awaiting some new policy from them before they proceed with the hearings, whatever powers they may have. Is that correct?

Mr. SAUNDERS. Yes, sir, and I think the key is the Sunday date of June 1, the high density rule beginning, and the need to see what it will accomplish.

Senator SPONG. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Saunders.

Mr. SAUNDERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator SPONG. Mr. Joseph Foster.

Mr. Foster, I do not know whether this is a fortunate or unfortunate time for you to testify. I just got through saying the airlines will not be doing anything voluntarily. But I want you to know we are very pleased to have you here and to hear from you.

Mr. FOSTER. Thank you, sir.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH A. FOSTER, VICE PRESIDENT, AIRPORT FACILITIES, AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION

Mr. FOSTER. My name is Joseph A. Foster. I am vice president, airport facilities, Air Transport Association of America, a trade and service organization representing the U.S. scheduled airlines.

At this committee's initial hearings on March 19, 1969, I pointed out the immediate need for improvements at each of the three major airports in the Washington-Baltimore metropolitan area. Today, I will focus attention solely on Dulles International Airport by reviewing its potential and detailing more specifically what needs to be done to prepare for the tremendous growth which this airport will be required to absorb during the 1970's.

It is now apparent that certain facilities at Dulles are becoming overburdened during peak periods of the airport's expanding operations. This is not a development unique to Dulles. All principal airports around the country are in continual need of facility improvements to meet the large increases in demand for air travel which have characterized the development of U.S. air transportation. I would like to call your attention to a recent forecast of airport activity at Dulles, prepared by the Federal Aviation Administration.

FAA's latest report, entitled "Washington National and Dulles International Airport Forecasts, Fiscal Years 1969-1980" estimates that the Washington/Baltimore metropolitan area's 13.7 million airline passengers handled in 1968 will increase to 26.7 million passengers by 1975 and to 42.4 million by 1980.

The FAA forecasts project that growth of passenger traffic at Dulles will increase from 1.6 million passengers handled in 1968 to 5.2 million in 1975 and to 11.3 million in 1980. Our own ATA Airport Master Plan Report for Dulles, prepared by the airlines and submitted to the FAA, projects significantly larger volumes of traffic at Dulles than the FAA study. By 1975, for example, the airlines' estimate is about 8 million passengers, and by 1980, we estimate that more than 17 million passengers will be handled at Dulles.

While the FAA report predicts that Dulles' share of the total Washington/Baltimore area air passenger market will reach 26.7 percent by 1980 from its current share of 11.7 percent, the airlines project a 27.6 percent share of the market for Dulles by 1975 and nearly 40 percent. by 1980.

Air carrier aircraft operations at Dulles are also predicted to advance at very rapid rates by both FAA and the airlines. While FAA estimates that the 59,000 takeoffs and landings at Dulles in 1968 will double by 1975, the airlines project a faster rate of growth to almost 150,000 operations by 1975. By 1980, the number of these operations

will reach 271,000 according to ATA estimates, as compared to 190,000 by FAA estimates.

As recently as 1964, Dulles ranked 63d among the Nation's airports in terms of air carrier operations. But by 1968, air carrier operations at Dulles had more than doubled and the airport had advanced to the rank of 43d. As growth at Dulles continues at a rate far above the national average, the airport will move upward in these national rankings.

Cargo traffic at Dulles Airport is expected to increase by leaps and bounds. The 55 million pounds of cargo carried in 1968 at Dullesthis includes freight, express, and mail-will, by 1975, amount to 140 million pounds by FAS estimates or to 192 million pounds by the airlines' calculations. Both FAA and the airlines predict that the 1975 volume of cargo will nearly double in size during the 5-year period

1975-80.

In addition to the rapidly expanding air traffic activity at the airport, business activity within the airport's boundaries is recording steady gains. This is reflected in part by the airport rental revenues taken in by FAA from the concessions located on the airport. In fiscal year 1968, these revenues amounted to $927,000 as compared to $741,000 in the previous fiscal year and $556,000 in fiscal year 1966. Early this year, FAA authorized two development firms to build two four-story office buildings each providing 100,000 square feet. These firms also have options on three additional sites. The Marriott Corp. has a similar agreement with FAA for the construction of a hotel at the airport designed for an ultimate 550-room capacity. Other projects planned for the airport include a new warehouse and rentalcar garages.

One indicator of an airport's growing importance lies in the economic activity which it attracts to its environs. There have been noticeable developments in this respect during the past 2 years in both Fairfax and Loudoun Counties. For example, Grumman Aircraft has constructed a manufacturing facility in close proximity to the airport. Others purchasing large tracts of land in the area include IBM, Holiday Inn, the American Trucking Association, United States Steel, and Levitt & Sons. Recent reports within the past weeks indicate that a massive $1 billion permanent U.S. Exhibition of Science and Industry may locate in Loudoun County at a site less than 5 miles from Dulles. The fact that Dulles is becoming increasingly important to the economies of its surrounding communities was noted by a recent consultant's study prepared for Fairfax County. According to this report:

*** Dulles International Airport will be one of the most significant factors having a major impact upon development in the Bull Run district, and that in all likelihood development attracted around the airport will prove to be one of the most significant features of Fairfax County's economic development over the next fifteen to twenty years.

Dulles has a great future before it. But it is imperative that we begin now to take steps which will insure the future adequacy of this airport. There are certain facilities at the airport which are already suffering from the normal pains of rapid growth. Specifically, those facilities in immediate need of improvement include the passenger baggage claim areas, ticket counters, and enplaning passenger facilities.