82–170

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 2d Session 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

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 recommendations in the accompanying bill are: (1) An appropriation of $13,599,225,000 for the Federal Aviation Administration, consistent with provisions of AIR–21; (2) A limitation of $3,400,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, as required by provisions of AIR–21; (3) An appropriation of $4,305,456,000 for operating expenses of the Coast Guard; (4) An appropriation of $762,476,000 for grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), to cover capital and operating expenses; (5) An appropriation of $5,146,000,000 for capital and operating 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 Committees, 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 category 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 programs. Although using different procedures, each of these Acts produced the same results: they significantly raised spending, and 

they effectively prohibited the Appropriations Committee from reVerDate 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 addressed 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 constituencies cause both transportation and non-transportation programs 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 transportation priorities inappropriately, by providing a banquet of increases 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 compared with the budget estimates is included at the end of this report. 

COMMITTEE HEARINGS

The Committee has conducted extensive hearings on the programs and projects provided for in the Department of Transportation 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 developed 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 accompanying bill, the terms ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ shall mean 

any item for which a dollar amount is contained in an appropriations Act (including joint resolutions providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of the House and Senate ComVerDate 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 appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal Aviation Administration, and for acquisition, construction, and improvements, Coast 

Guard, shall be applied equally to each ‘‘budget item’’ that is listed 

under said accounts in the budget justifications submitted to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as modified by 

subsequent appropriations Acts and accompanying committee reports, conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of the 

committee of conference. 

ACCRUAL FUNDING OF RETIREMENT COSTS AND POST-RETIREMENT

HEALTH BENEFITS

The President’s Budget included a legislative proposal under the 

jurisdiction of the House Committee on Government Reform to 

charge to individual agencies, starting in fiscal year 2003, the fully 

accrued costs related to retirement benefits of Civil Service Retirement System employees and retiree health benefits for all civilian 

employees. The Budget also requested an additional dollar amount 

in each affected discretionary account to cover these accrued costs. 

Without passing judgment on the merits of this legislative proposal, the Committee has reduced the dollar amounts of the President’s request shown in the ‘‘Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority’’ and other tables in this report to exclude the accrual 

funding proposal. The disposition by Congress of the legislative 

proposal is unclear at this time. Should the proposal be passed by 

Congress and enacted, the Committee will make appropriate adjustments to the President’s request to include accrual amounts. 

The Committee further notes that administration proposals requiring legislative action by the authorizing committees of Congress are customarily submitted in the budget as separate schedules apart from the regular appropriations requests. Should such 

a proposal be enacted, a budget amendment formally modifying the 

President’s appropriation request for discretionary funding is then 

transmitted to the Congress. 

The Committee is concerned that this practice, which has always 

worked effectively for both Congress and past administrations, was 

not followed for the accrual funding proposal. In this case, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) decided to include accrual 

amounts in the original discretionary appropriations language request. These amounts are based on legislation that has yet to be 

considered and approved by the appropriate committees of Congress. This led to numerous misunderstandings inside Congress of 

what was the ‘‘true’’ President’s budget request. The Committee believes that in the future, OMB should follow long-established procedures with respect to discretionary spending proposals that require 

legislative action. 

5

CROSS-CHARGING OF COSTS FOR THE FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ACT PROGRAM

Currently, one of the statutory missions of the Department of 

Labor (DOL) is to oversee and administer the Federal Employees’

Compensation Act (FECA), which provides workers’ compensation 

benefits to eligible federal employees. DOL currently pays benefits 

from the Special Benefits fund and administrative costs from the 

agency’s discretionary budget. Benefits are billed back to agencies, 

while administrative costs are not. The President’s budget for fiscal 

year 2003 would allow DOL to add an administrative surcharge to 

the amount billed to agencies for FECA benefits, on the assumption 

that it would give agencies a greater incentive to monitor and reduce FECA benefit costs, and that it better reflects the cost of government programs on an agency-by-agency basis. 

The Committee rejects this proposal and has eliminated, in each 

account, amounts totaling $5,642,100 for these administrative surcharges. Such charges will not lead to greater government efficiency. On the contrary, DOL employees will have little incentive 

to become more efficient if they can simply bill other agencies for 

their inefficiencies. Agencies currently view FECA benefit charges 

as a mandatory expense, and they will view the administrative surcharge as mandatory as well. With this change, DOL would avoid 

budgetary competition within its own budget function, and transfer 

that pressure to other parts of the government. The Committee believes that if all agencies were to begin cross-charging others for 

the costs of performing its own statutory duties, a balkanization of 

the budget process would result. For example, the FAA could easily 

charge other agencies each time a government aircraft flies though 

airspace controlled by the agency. While this might ease the burden on FAA’s discretionary budget, it would provide the wrong incentives for good management and efficiency in the federal system 

as a whole, and undermine oversight of spending at the FAA. This 

cross-charging practice has not been authorized by the Congress, 

and the Committee encourages the legislative committees to review 

any such proposal with the utmost scrutiny. 

TITLE I 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ......................................................... $67,778,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 1 ..................................................... 92,460,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 82,474,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .................................................. +14,696,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................ ¥9,986,000 

1 Excludes $3,640,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals. 

The bill provides a total of $82,474,000 for the salaries and expenses of the various offices comprising the Office of the Secretary. 

The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2002 program levels, the fiscal year 2003 program requests and the Committee’s recommendations:

6

Program Fiscal year 2002

enacted 

Fiscal year 2003

request 3 Recommended 

Immediate office of the Secretary 1 ................................... $1,929,000 ................................ ................................

Immediate office of the Deputy Secretary 1 ....................... 619,000 ................................ ................................

Executive Secretariat1 ......................................................... 1,204,000 ................................ ................................

Immediate office of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary .. ................................ $4,410,000 $4,355,000 

Office of General Counsel ................................................... 13,355,000 15,657,000 14,950,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy 2 ..................... 3,058,000 ................................ ................................

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs 2 ............................................................ 7,421,000 ................................ ................................

Office of the Under Secretary for Transportation Policy .... ................................ 12,452,000 12,024,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs ............................................................................. 7,728,000 8,375,000 7,415,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs 2,282,000 2,453,000 2,453,000 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ......... 19,250,000 29,285,000 27,686,000 

Office of Public Affairs ....................................................... 1,723,000 1,926,000 1,926,000 

Board of Contract Appeals ................................................. 507,000 611,000 611,000 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Businesses ................ 1,240,000 1,304,000 1,304,000 

Office of Intelligence and Security ..................................... 1,321,000 ................................ ................................

Office of the Chief Information Officer .............................. 6,141,000 15,987,000 9,750,000

Total ....................................................................... 67,778,000 92,460,000 82,474,000 

1 In fiscal year 2003, the budget proposed merging the Office of the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Executive Secretariat into one office 

titled ‘‘Immediate Office of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary’’. 2 In fiscal year 2003, the budget proposed merging the Assistant Secretary for Aviation with the Assistant Secretary for Policy and the Of- fice of Intermodalism into one office titled ‘‘Under Secretary for Transportation Policy.’’ 3 Excludes $3,640,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals. 

The Committee has approved the consolidation of the Offices of 

the Secretary, Deputy Secretary and the Executive Secretariat into 

a new immediate office of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary. In 

approving this merger, the Secretary and Deputy Secretary should 

be cautious not to transfer funds previously allocated to the Executive Secretariat for their own needs without consultation with the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. Also, the proposed merger of the offices of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation 

and International Affairs, Assistant Secretary for Policy and the 

Office of Intermodalism into a new office of the Under Secretary for 

Transportation Policy has been approved. 

The Committee has made the following adjustments to the budget request:

Reduce increase for travel in the immediate office of Secretary and 

Deputy Secretary ................................................................................ ¥$55,000 

Reduce personnel, compensation, and benefits increases ................... ¥2,571,000 

Reduce travel increase for Under Secretary for Transportation Policy ........................................................................................................ ¥50,000 

Reduce increase in contract expenses for Under Secretary for 

Transportation Policy ........................................................................ ¥48,000 

Deny two new staff positions in the Chief Information Office ........... ¥112,000 

Reduce request for information technology ......................................... ¥2,350,000 

Reduce funding requested for enterprise architecture ....................... ¥1,380,000 

Reduce increase requested for capital planning .................................. ¥1,770,000 

Reduce funding requested for e-government ....................................... ¥625,000

Deny increase requested for ‘‘accessibility for all America’’ ............... ¥553,000 

Deny FECA administrative costs ......................................................... ¥22,000 

Deny funding for video teleconferencing system (SVTS) .................... ¥450,000

Travel increases.—The Committee has reduced two requested increases for travel, one within the immediate Office of the Secretary 

and Deputy Secretary (¥$55,000) and one within the office for the 

Under Secretary for Transportation Policy (¥$50,000). Both of 

these offices have received significant increases for travel funds in 

the past and will still receive a substantial increase in travel fundVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
7

ing in fiscal year 2003. These slight reductions should have no negative impact on their operations. 

Personnel, compensation, and benefits.—The Committee has decreased funding requested for personnel, compensation, and benefits by $2,571,000. Funding reductions were made to four offices: 

Administration (¥$1,127,000), Budget (¥$960,000), General Counsel (¥$154,000), and Policy (¥$330,000). These reductions were 

made to requested increases in personnel, compensation, and benefits because of high levels of vacancies in each of these offices. For 

example, as of the end of July the Assistant Secretary for Budget 

was 25 percent below authorized staffing levels and the Assistant 

Secretary for Administration was 17.5 percent below authorized 

staffing levels. 

Contract expenses.—A slight reduction was made to the Under 

Secretary for Transportation Policy’s contract expenses because the 

requested increase was inadequately justified (¥$48,000). 

New staff positions.—The Committee has denied two of the four 

new staff positions requested by the Chief Information Office, to reflect other reductions made to programs within this office. 

Information technology.—In total, the Committee has reduced 

funding requested for a variety of information technology programs 

including information technology security, enterprise architecture, 

capital planning, and e-government (¥$6,125,000). The budget request did not provide sufficient justification for the requested increase of $10,000,000 in fiscal year 2003 for information technology 

activities. 

FECA administrative costs.—Consistent with actions taken 

across all DOT modal administrations funded in this bill, the Committee has denied funding for FECA administrative costs. 

Video teleconferencing.—The Committee has deferred consideration of requests for secure video teleconferencing equipment until 

the issues surrounding creation of the new Department of Homeland Security are resolved. 

Office of Intelligence and Security.—The budget request did not 

include any funding for the Office of Intelligence and Security because it had been transferred to the Transportation Security Administration. However, if TSA is transferred to the new Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Transportation should 

make arrangements to have one staff detailed to him from this new 

agency so that he remains informed on intelligence and security 

issues pertaining to transportation. 

Congressional budget justifications.—The Committee again directs the department to submit all of the department’s fiscal year 

Congressional budget justifications on the first Monday in February, concurrent with official submission of the President’s budget 

to Congress. Also, the department is directed to submit its fiscal 

year 2004 Congressional justification materials for the salaries and 

expenses of the Office of the Secretary at the same level of detail 

provided in the Congressional justifications presented in fiscal year 

2003. 

Report distribution.—The Committee is extremely disconcerted 

with the unprecedented actions the department took with the report on FHWA’s streamlining efforts due January 2, 2002. The report was delivered on the evening before FHWA was to testify. 

Without prior notice or approval, the Department violated the 

8

standard practice in place for many years, and not only attached 

the report to testimony delivered to the House Appropriations Committee for public dissemination, but also widely distributed the report to other Congressional Committees and to the press. Although 

the report was requested specifically by the House Committee on 

Appropriations, members of the Committee had no opportunity to 

read the report before mass distribution to the public. The Committee strongly recommends the department confer with the Committee and adopt written procedures for report distribution similar 

to the standards in place and followed before February 28, 2002. 

In addition, the Committee directs the department to refrain from 

attaching miscellaneous documents, including reports, to Congressional testimony without prior consultation. 

Bill language.—Language prohibiting funding for the Assistant 

Secretary for Public Affairs position has been retained from last 

year. Also, the bill continues language that permits up to 

$2,500,000 of fees to be credited to the Office of the Secretary for 

salaries and expenses. Similar language has been carried in past 

years. 

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Limitation on political and Presidential appointees.—The Committee has included a provision in the bill (sec. 304), similar to provisions in past Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Acts, which limits the number of political and Presidential appointees within the Department of Transportation. The 

ceiling for fiscal year 2003 is 107 personnel, which is the five more 

than approved in fiscal year 2002. While the Department had requested 116 positions, currently there are 18 political vacancies. 

With such a high level of vacancies, the Committee cannot support 

such a large increase. Also, language is retained prohibiting any 

political or Presidential appointee from being detailed outside the 

Department of Transportation or any other agency funded in this 

bill. 

Funds received by the departments.—The Committee has denied 

bill language pertaining to the use of rebates, refunds, incentive 

payments, fees and other funds received by the department. Significant violations have occurred in the use of these funds. Specifically, the Inspector General recently found that the DOT spent 

about $37,000,000 obtained from the U.S. Treasury ‘‘miscellaneous 

receipts’’ accounts between fiscal years 1998 and 2001 to finance 

four projects involving office space renovation, purchasing new systems furniture, and developing new DOT financial systems, rather 

than using funds appropriated to DOT for such purposes. By law, 

DOT collections were required to be returned to the Treasury. DOT 

did not have the authority to retain and spend this money. Yet, the 

former Deputy Chief Financial Officer authorized accounting staff 

to move money from selected Treasury accounts each year immediately before Treasury would have transferred the money into the 

General Fund. In addition to not having the authority to spend 

Treasury’s money, DOT also obligated $21,000,000 of the $37,000,000 to authorize and create new obligations after the funds 

had legally expired for obligation. None of the Treasury money was 

credited to DOT appropriations nor was it allocated to elements of 

the department as required by legislation, and none of the exVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
9

penses were charged against amounts appropriated to DOT. The 

Inspector General referred these violations to the DOT General 

Counsel, who concluded that the amount withdrawn from Treasury’s miscellaneous receipts accounts must now be repaid. Unless unobligated balances sufficient to repay the $37,000,000 are now 

available in expired appropriations accounts and those accounts 

could properly have been charged for the costs at the time they 

were incurred, the reports required by the Anti-deficiency Act must 

be transmitted to the President and the Congress. The Committee 

understands that the department is working to resolve these problems by December 2002. Because of these significant violations of 

federal law, the Committee will not continue the general provision 

until evidence is received that these serious problems have all been 

corrected, officials have been held accountable, and monitoring systems are in place to prevent recidivism.

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ......................................................... $8,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 1 ..................................................... 8,700,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 8,500,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .................................................. ............................

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................ ¥200,000

1 Excludes $470,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals. 

The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the Secretary on civil rights and equal opportunity matters and ensuring 

full implementation of civil rights opportunity precepts in all of the 

department’s official actions and programs. This office is responsible for enforcing laws and regulations that prohibit discrimination in federally operated and federally assisted transportation programs. This office also handles all civil rights cases related to Department of Transportation employees. The recommendation provides a total of $8,500,000 for the office of civil rights, which is the 

same level as enacted in the fiscal year 2002. 

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ......................................................... $11,993,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 1 ..................................................... 10,700,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 11,157,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .................................................. ¥836,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................ +457,000

1 Excludes $135,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals. 

This appropriation finances those research activities and studies 

concerned with planning, analysis, and information development 

needed to support the Secretary’s responsibilities in the formulation of national transportation policies. It also finances the staff 

necessary to conduct these efforts. The overall program is carried 

out primarily through contracts with other federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and private 

firms. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $11,157,000 for 

transportation planning, research and development, which is 

$457,000 more than the budget request. The following adjustments 

were made to the request:

10

Staffing reductions ................................................................................. ¥$1,043,000

Texas Transportation Institute ............................................................ +1,500,000

Staffing reductions.—The Committee reduced the requested increases in personnel, compensation, and benefits because of an extremely high level of vacancies in this office (¥$1,043,000). As of 

July, 2002, staffing in the transportation planning, research, and 

development office was 37.5 percent below authorized staffing levels. 

Texas Transportation Institute.—The Committee has provided 

$1,500,000 to work on a regional mobility and safety study for the 

greater Houston area in Texas. 

TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CENTER

Limitation, fiscal year 2002 ........................................................... 1 ($126,123,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 2 ................................................. (131,779,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................... (131,766,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Limitation, fiscal year 2002 .................................................... (+5,643,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............................................ (¥13,000)

1 Includes funding in the 2002 supplemental. Does not reflect reduction of $5,000,000 pursuant to section 

349 of Public Law 107–87 or reduction of $4,300,000 pursuant to section 1106 of Public Law 107–117. 2Proposed without limitation. Includes Department of Transportation only. 

The transportation administrative service center (TASC) was created in fiscal year 1997 to provide common administrative services 

to the various modes and outside entities that desire those services 

for economy and efficiency. The fund is financed through negotiated 

agreements with the department’s operating administrations and 

other governmental elements requiring the center’s capabilities. 

The Committee agreed to create the transportation administrative service center in fiscal year 1997 at the department’s request. 

In agreeing to that request, the Committee limited (1) the activities 

that can be transferred to the transportation administrative service 

center to only those approved by the agency administrator and (2) 

special assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any 

program, project or activity funded in this Act to only those assessments or reimbursable agreements where the agreements and the 

basis for them are presented to and approved by the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations. These limitations are continued in fiscal year 2003. 

The Committee recommends a limitation of $131,766,000 on 

funding through the transportation administrative service center. A 

slight reduction (¥$13,000) has been made to account for the denial of FECA accruals in this limitation. 

The Committee believes that a limitation is necessary in this account because, in the past, TASC has attempted to pass on assessments to modal administrations without justification or has 

charged modal administrations for activities that have not been approved by Congress. 

Modal usage of TASC.—Consistent with last year’s practice, the 

Committee directs the department, in its fiscal year 2004 Congressional justifications for each of the modal administrations, to account for increases or decreases in TASC billings based on planned 

usage requested or anticipated by the modes rather than anticipated by the TASC. 

11

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

Appropriation Limitation on guaranteed loans 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ................. $900,000 $18,367,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............... 900,000 18,367,000 

Recommended in the bill ............................ 900,000 18,367,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .......... ................................ ................................

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ........ ................................ ................................

The minority business resource center of the office of small and 

disadvantaged business utilization provides assistance in obtaining 

short-term working capital and bonding for disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The program enables qualified 

businesses to obtain loans at prime interest rates for transportation-related projects. 

Prior to fiscal year 1993, loans under this program were funded 

by the office of small and disadvantaged business utilization without a limitation. Reflecting the changes made by the Credit Reform 

Act of 1990, beginning in fiscal year 1993, a separate appropriation 

was proposed in the President’s budget only for the subsidy inherently assumed in those loans and the cost to administer the loan 

program. In fiscal year 2001, the short-term lending program was 

converted from a direct loan program to a guaranteed loan program. The recommendation fully funds the budget request of $500,000 to cover the subsidy costs for the loans, not to exceed $18,367,000, 

and $400,000 for administrative expenses to carry out the guaranteed loan program. 

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ......................................................... $3,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ....................................................... 3,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 3,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .................................................. ............................

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................ ............................

This appropriation provides contractual support to assist minority business firms, entrepreneurs, and venture groups in securing 

contracts and subcontracts arising out of projects that involve federal spending. It also provides grants and contract assistance that 

serves DOT-wide goals. The Committee has provided $3,000,000, 

the same level as provided in fiscal year 2002 and the same level 

as requested in the budget. 

NEW HEADQUARTERS BUILDING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ......................................................... ............................

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ....................................................... $25,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 25,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .................................................. +25,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................ ............................

In 1997, Congress authorized the General Services Administration to acquire space to consolidate the housing needs of the Department of Transportation. This new appropriation finances the 

fiscal year 2003 costs for the new headquarters building, which will 

consolidate all of DOT’s headquarters operating administration 

12

functions (except FAA, TSA, and the Coast Guard), from various locations into a state-of-the-art efficient building in the District of 

Columbia. The DOT’s current headquarters facility is more than 30 

years old and many of its building systems are well beyond their 

useful life. For example, the building has an unsecured perimeter, 

no blast protection, an inefficient interior layout, and was diagnosed in the past as a ‘‘sick building’’. Prior to deciding to move to 

a new facility, DOT considered rehabilitating the current site; however, the contractor withdrew this option from evaluation. The budget requested $25,000,000 for tenant build out requirements for the new building, assuming the DOT would lease the facility. Additional funding would be required to complete tenant finishes. The Administration assumed that DOT would begin occupying the new building by late 2005 or early 2006. The Committee 

recommends $25,000,000 for a new DOT headquarters building. 

PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 20021 ........................................................ 2 $63,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 20033 ..................................................... ............................

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 50,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .................................................. ¥13,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................ +50,000,000

1The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996 permanently appropriated $50,000,000 

of overflight fees for the Essential Air Service program. To the extent fees fall below the $50,000,000, current law requires the difference to be covered by Federal Aviation Administration funds. 2 In addition to the $50,000,000 permanently appropriated to this program, Congress provided $13,000,000 in P.L. 107–87 and $50,000,000 in the Emergency Supplemental Act of 2002. 3The budget assumes $113,000,000 for the essential air service program: the collection of $30,000,000 in overflight fees and the balance of $83,000,000 to be paid from the FAA Airport Improvement Program. 

The payments to air carriers, or essential air service (EAS) program, was originally created by the Airline Deregulation Act of 

1978 as a temporary measure to continue air service to communities that had received federally mandated air service prior to deregulation. The program currently provides subsidies to air carriers 

serving small communities that meet certain criteria. Subsidies, 

ranging from $14 to $496 per passenger, currently support air service to 81 communities and serve about 700,000 passengers annually. 

The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 1996 

(Public Law 104–264) authorized the collection of user fees for services provided by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to aircraft that neither take off from, nor land in the United States, commonly known as overflight fees. In addition, the Act permanently 

appropriated these fees for authorized expenses of the FAA and 

stipulated that the first $50,000,000 of annual fee collections must 

be used to finance the EAS program. In the event of a shortfall in 

fees, the law requires FAA to make up the difference from other 

funds available to the agency. 

Over the years, Congress and the department have worked to 

streamline the essential air service program and to increase its efficiency by eliminating communities that are within an easy drive of 

a major hub airport or where the costs clearly outweigh the benefits. Federal law now limits the number of communities that receive essential air service funding by excluding points in the 48 

contiguous United States that are located fewer than seventy highVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
13

way miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport, or that 

require a subsidy in excess of $200 per passenger, unless such 

point is more than 210 miles from the nearest large or medium airport. 

For fiscal year 2003, the budget requested several changes in the 

EAS program. First, the budget request assumed the collection of 

$30,000,000 in overflight fees instead of the $50,000,000 assumed 

in law. Second, the budget requested that the remainder of the program ($83,000,000) be funded from the Airport Improvement Program. Third, the budget included a general provision that capped 

the per passenger subsidy at $275, with the exception of service to 

communities in Alaska. Fourth, the budget requested language permitting the Secretary to take whatever actions are necessary to 

keep the fiscal year 2003 program within the proposed funding 

level of $113,000,000. 

The Committee recommends a total program level for EAS in fis- cal year 2003 of $100,000,000. This funding consists of an appropriation of $50,000,000 and $50,000,000 from overflight user fees 

or other funds available to the Federal Aviation Administration. If 

overflight fees are less than $50,000,000, FAA is expected to use 

funds available under the facilities and equipment account to make 

up this shortfall. The Committee does not support funding the EAS 

program from airport improvement program grants, as requested. 

With the increased security costs all airports are incurring following the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, it is unfair to ask 

that this program also fund any shortfalls in the essential air service program. Similarly, the Committee has rejected both requests 

for bill language changes. Any significant changes to the core program should be considered as part of the broader aviation reauthorization that will occur next year. The Committee notes that, 

while the EAS funding is below the requested level, there is 

$13,000,000 to $16,000,000 in funds appropriated during fiscal year 

2002 that will carry over into fiscal year 2003. When these funds 

are taken into consideration, the program will have the same funding level as assumed in the budget request. 

The General Accounting Office recently released a report on options to enhance the long-term viability of the essential air service 

program. In summary, the report found that over the past several 

years, the EAS program has grown exponentially. The annual program costs have tripled, from $37,000,000 in 1995 to $113,000,000 

in 2002 and the average subsidy per continental U.S. community 

served has increased from $424,000 to $838,000 over the same time 

period. Yet, passenger traffic at EAS-subsidized communities decreased by 20 percent since 1995. Also, the median daily passengers enplaned per community has declined to an estimated 10 

per day, just over 3 passengers per flight, as more low cost carriers 

operate in adjacent communities and passengers choose other 

modes of transportation because of the high prices to fly in and out 

of EAS airports. GAO identified four options to enhance the longterm viability of the EAS program. These options include targeting 

subsidized service to more remote communities; better matching 

capacity with community use; consolidating service to multiple 

communities into regional airports; and changing carrier subsidies 

into local grants. Because of the serious affordability challenges 

facing this program, the Committee believes these options and 

14

their impacts require a serious review. Accordingly the Committee 

strongly encourages the department to review each option and develop a plan to restructure the EAS program as part of aviation reauthorization next year.

The following table reflects the points currently receiving services and the annual subsidy rates in the continental United States 

and Hawaii:

EAS SUBSIDY RATES AS OF JULY 1, 2002

States/communities 

Average daily 

enplanements at 

EAS point (year 

ending September 30, 2001) 

Annual subsidy 

rates (July 1, 

2002) 

Subsidy per passenger 

Total passengers 

(year ending 

September 30, 

2001) 

ALABAMA 

Muscle Shoals ....................................................... 22.5 $1,073,257 $76.05 14,113

ARIZONA 

Kingman ................................................................ 5.1 541,502 170.87 3,169

Page ...................................................................... (1) 1,251,977 ........................ ........................

Prescott ................................................................. 14.0 541,502 61.80 8,762

Show Low .............................................................. (1) 410,080 ........................ ........................

ARKANSAS 

El Dorado/Camden ................................................ 4.1 1,018,681 392.25 2,597

Harrison ................................................................. 8.6 1,121,411 207.28 5,410

Hot Springs ........................................................... 8.4 1,121,411 213.97 5,241

Jonesboro ............................................................... 7.7 1,018,681 210.82 4,832

CALIFORNIA 

Crescent City ......................................................... 43.5 333,717 12.27 27,205

Merced ................................................................... 13.3 1,031,224 123.81 8,329

COLORADO 

Alamosa ................................................................. 14.7 925,045 100.29 9,224

Cortez .................................................................... 28.8 403,311 22.35 18,044

Pueblo .................................................................... 8.8 527,185 95.83 5,501

HAWAII 

Hana ...................................................................... 12.2 746,752 97.96 7,623

Kamuela ................................................................ 6.0 594,751 157.76 3,770

Kalaupapa ............................................................. 5.2 386,624 118.27 3,269

ILLINOIS 

Decator .................................................................. 36.0 487,050 21.60 22,546

Marion/Herrin ......................................................... 36.1 794,031 35.11 22,618

IOWA 

Burlington .............................................................. 39.2 929,082 37.85 24,547

Fort Dodge ............................................................. ........................ (2) ........................ ........................

Mason City ............................................................ ........................ (2) ........................ ........................

KANSAS 

Dodge City ............................................................. 13.5 1,159,886 137.39 8,442

Garden City ........................................................... 32.2 1,159,886 57.59 20,141

Great Bend ............................................................ 3.9 298,799 121.66 2,456

Hays ....................................................................... 24.8 1,330,824 85.62 15,543

Liberal/Guymon ...................................................... 10.5 824,776 125.73 6,560

Salena ................................................................... ........................ (2) ........................ ........................

Topeka ................................................................... 6.2 621,872 161.07 3,861

KENTUCKY 

Owensboro ............................................................. 21.5 888,863 66.03 13,461

MAINE 

Augusta/Waterville ................................................ 13.7 1,205,855 140.26 8,597

Bar Harbor ............................................................. 40.8 1,205,855 47.21 25,545

Presque Isle ........................................................... 59.6 1,480,512 39.71 37,284

Rockland ................................................................ 23.4 1,205.855 82.48 14,620

MICHIGAN 

Iron/Ashland .......................................................... 6.5 544,269 134.49 4,047

Iron Mountain/Kingsford ........................................ 28.6 1,614,863 90.05 17,933

Manistee ................................................................ 4.4 542,168 197.15 2,750

MINNESOTA 

Thief River Falls .................................................... ........................ (2) ........................ ........................

MISSISSIPPI 

Laurel/Hattiesburg ................................................. 39.1 1,056,991 43.17 24,485

15

EAS SUBSIDY RATES AS OF JULY 1, 2002—Continued

States/communities 

Average daily 

enplanements at 

EAS point (year 

ending September 30, 2001) 

Annual subsidy 

rates (July 1, 

2002) 

Subsidy per passenger 

Total passengers 

(year ending 

September 30, 

2001) 

MISSOURI 

Cape Girardeau ..................................................... 22.3 430,925 30.87 13,958

Fort Leonard Wood ................................................ 27.1 573,725 33.79 16,979

Kirksville ................................................................ 6.3 732,363 186.59 3,925

MONTANA 

Glasgow ................................................................. 7.0 707,462 160.60 4,405

Glendive ................................................................. 3.1 707,462 367.13 1,927

Havre ..................................................................... 3.7 707,462 308.13 2.296

Lewistown .............................................................. 2.8 707,462 398.35 1,776

Miles City .............................................................. 3.9 707,462 291.38 2,428

Sidney .................................................................... 8.6 707,462 131.89 5,364

Wolf Point .............................................................. 5.8 707,462 193.35 2,650

NEBRASKA 

Alliance .................................................................. 2.8 971,920 556.97 1,745

Chadron ................................................................. 5.1 971,920 303.06 3,207

Kearney .................................................................. 25.0 839,487 53.71 15,629

McCook .................................................................. 7.6 1,325,289 279.48 5,472

Norfolk ................................................................... 4.8 751,373 248.39 3,025

North Platte ........................................................... 24.1 751,373 49.91 15,056

NEVADA 

Ely .......................................................................... (1) 976,533 ........................ ........................

NEW MEXICO 

Alamogordo/Holloman ............................................ 6.2 849,235 219.16 3,875

Carlsbad ................................................................ ........................ (2) ........................ ........................

Clovis ..................................................................... 8.8 1,118,197 202.28 5,528

Gallup .................................................................... 3.2 691,080 347.10 1,991

Hobbs .................................................................... ........................ (2) ........................ ........................

Silver City/Hurley/Deming ...................................... 8.3 935,667 179.69 5,207

NEW YORK 

Massena ................................................................ 9.0 635,144 112.51 5,645

Ogdensburg ........................................................... 7.6 635,144 132.76 4,784

Saranac Lake ........................................................ 9.1 631,353 111.06 5,685

Utica ...................................................................... 3.7 1,133,415 495.59 2,287

Watertown .............................................................. 10.7 635,144 94.52 6,720

NORTH DAKOTA 

Devils Lake ............................................................ 8.5 793,867 149.17 5,322

Dickinson ............................................................... 12.6 590,153 74.86 7,883

Jamestown ............................................................. 9.4 793,867 134.30 5,911

OKLAHOMA 

Enid ....................................................................... 12.1 1,193,915 157.38 7,586

Ponca City ............................................................. 11.7 1,193,915 162.39 7,352

PENNSYLVANIA 

Altoona .................................................................. 48.1 995,533 33.03 30,141

Johnstown .............................................................. 59.1 849,798 22.97 37,002

Oil City/Franklin .................................................... 15.2 510,261 53.49 9,540

PUERTO RICO 

Ponce ..................................................................... 19.8 337,551 27.28 12,372

SOUTH DAKOTA 

Brookings ............................................................... 3.4 849,386 397.09 2,139

Huron ..................................................................... 5.8 394,585 109.58 3,601

Watertown .............................................................. ........................ (2) ........................ ........................

Pierre ..................................................................... 27.9 318,861 18.27 17,452

TENNESSEE 

Jackson .................................................................. 25.3 1,151,993 72.68 15,850

TEXAS 

Brownwood ............................................................ 6.8 1,113,305 260.85 4,268

UTAH 

Cadar City ............................................................. 30,0 836,102 44.48 18,798

Moab ...................................................................... (1) 971,444 ........................ ........................

Vernal .................................................................... (1) 1,102,967 ........................ ........................

VERMONT 

Rutland .................................................................. 9.8 1,205,855 195.82 6,158

16

EAS SUBSIDY RATES AS OF JULY 1, 2002—Continued

States/communities 

Average daily 

enplanements at 

EAS point (year 

ending September 30, 2001) 

Annual subsidy 

rates (July 1, 

2002) 

Subsidy per passenger 

Total passengers 

(year ending 

September 30, 

2001) 

VIRGINIA 

Staunton ................................................................ ........................ (2) ........................ ........................

WASHINGTON 

Ephrata/Moses Lake .............................................. 32.7 479,859 23.48 20,439

WEST VIRGINIA 

Beckley .................................................................. 9.0 1,033,847 183.34 5,639

Princeton/Bluefield ................................................ 7.5 1,033,847 218.99 4,721

WISCONSIN 

Oshkosh ................................................................. 8.7 460,392 84.86 5,425

WYOMING 

Laramie ................................................................. 33.8 297,633 14.07 21,149

Rock Springs ......................................................... 31.3 465,023 23.72 19,605

Worland ................................................................. 9.5 353,345 59.73 5,916

1 A full year’s data are not available due to a service hiatus. 2 Hold-in rates under negotiation. 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ..................................................... $5,842,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................... 5,346,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................... 5,146,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .............................................. ¥696,500,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............................................ ¥200,000,000

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was established on November 19, 2001 pursuant to the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. The Act makes the agency responsible for 

carrying out transportation security activities in all modes of transportation, including aviation, rail, highway, pipeline, and maritime. 

This Act mandated an extensive TSA role in civil aviation security, 

transferring responsibilities from the Federal Aviation Administration and expanding them to include the direct federal responsibility 

for passenger, baggage, and cargo screening at the nation’s commercial service airports. The Act mandated that TSA take over all 

passenger screening activities not later than November 19, 2002; 

provide screening for all checked baggage by explosive detection 

systems not later than December 31, 2002; and deploy armed law 

enforcement officers at airport screening checkpoints. The Act authorized user fees to be paid by passengers and airlines to help defray the agency’s costs. 

TSA’S START-UP YEAR

By anyone’s estimation, TSA has had an extraordinarily difficult 

first year. Admittedly, this was partly caused by overly-ambitious 

milestones enacted by Congress for the federal takeover of screening activities. However, these deadlines cannot account for even a 

fraction of the missteps and mistakes made by the agency this 

year. The Committee has been extremely frustrated with an agency 

seemingly unable to make crisp decisions; unable to present firm 

budget estimates in a timely fashion; unable to work cooperatively 

with the nation’s airports; and unable to take advantage of the 

multitude of security-improving and labor-saving technologies 

available. Thus far this year, the Committee has held three hearings to review TSA’s performance, and in the third hearing the 

17

Committee established initial performance goals it expects the 

agency to meet. The Committee will insist on effective management 

and will continue to hold TSA executives accountable for meeting 

their performance goals. In addition, the Committee will demand 

that TSA foster a much more cooperative attitude with Congress, 

airports, and the aviation industry than was shown earlier this 

year. The Committee is pleased that this attitude adjustment appears to be underway at this time. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends total funding of $5,146,000,000 in 

four appropriations. The Administration initially requested 

$4,800,000,000, but a budget amendment submitted on September 

3, 2002 raised the total request to $5,346,000,000. Because this 

budget amendment was submitted to the Congress without proposed offsets, and after passage of the House Budget Resolution 

which contained no such funding, the Committee has had to reduce 

other programs to address the Administration’s request. 

BUDGET PRESENTATION

The Committee does not believe it prudent, or consistent with 

other accounts in the bill, to provide a single lump-sum appropriation to TSA, as requested. Traditionally across the government, 

budgetary requests are divided into appropriations which account 

for important differences in the activities being financed, such as 

operating expenses, capital expenses, research and development, 

and grants to state and local entities. In this way, comparisons can 

be made across agencies, and a proper balance can be found between budgetary flexibility and oversight. For this reason, the 

Committee recommends that total TSA funding be provided in four 

separate appropriations, for aviation security; maritime and land 

security; research and development; and support programs. In addition, the Committee recommends a revised distribution of programs, projects, and activities (PPAs) which provides greater flexibility to the agency within individual appropriations. 

TSA STAFFING

The Committee’s investigation this year convinces the Committee 

that this fledgling agency is planning and budgeting for a vastly 

larger federal workforce than is necessary to protect the American 

public, and well beyond that contemplated when the agency was 

created ten months ago. Although the Committee stated in both 

hearings and in action on the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill that the agency must constrain itself to no more than 

45,000 full-time permanent federal positions, the budget justifications delivered in late June 2002 requests funds for 67,185 positions next year. In the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill, Congress capped the agency’s full-time staffing at 45,000. 

The Committee is adamant that the proposed staffing level is 

grossly excessive, and maintains the cap of 45,000 for fiscal year 

2003. 

TSA’s budget for fiscal year 2003 assumes the following positions 

for the passenger screening workforce alone which the Committee 

finds to be unnecessary or highly questionable. In fact, at the ComVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
18

mittee’s June 2002 hearing, the Undersecretary for Transportation 

Security was not even aware that many of these positions were in 

the budget, and declared that they would be eliminated.

Type of position Number assumed 

in FY03 budget 

Shoe and bin runners .......................................................................................................................................... 3,407

Ticket checkers (currently performed by airline staff) ........................................................................................ 1,430

Hand wanders ...................................................................................................................................................... 4,241

Queue coordinators ............................................................................................................................................... 1,405

Customer service representatives ........................................................................................................................ 1,405

Exit lane monitors ................................................................................................................................................ 3,248

Total ........................................................................................................................................................ 15,136

These unnecessary and questionable positions total 15,136—almost one-half the projected passenger screening workforce of 

32,900. 

Secondly, the budget assumes TSA will require a baggage screening workforce of 21,500. This number is driven by the agency’s decision to deploy a large number of explosive trace detection (ETD) 

systems, which are far more staff-intensive than CT-scan systems. 

TSA has made this erroneous decision in part to meet the unrealistic deadlines established by Congress, and in part because the 

agency naively believes it will be able to reduce its workforce by 

thousands in later years, when they decide to replace the ETD systems with the more efficient CT-scan machines. The Committee 

finds it pennywise and pound-foolish to hire workers to operate relatively inefficient systems in the near-term, only to potentially 

offer buyouts in future years to entice them to leave federal service. 

The Committee’s recommendation, discussed later in this report, 

provides alternate funding for TSA to pursue a more efficient and 

realistic course, with significant short-term and long-term salary 

savings. 

Thirdly, the budget assumes large numbers of federal law enforcement officers (LEOs) pursuant to section 110 of Public Law 

107–71. The Committee believes TSA can do more through state 

and local reimbursement, reducing the federal staffing requirement 

as well as overall budgetary requirements. 

Fourthly, TSA’s staffing figures assume approximately 3,000 

management, administrative, and support personnel: 2,121 at the 

nation’s airports and 880 at headquarters. Although some reductions in the estimates for airport-based staff have been made by 

TSA, the Committee believes further reductions are possible, particularly in support positions such as legal, human resources, and 

training. The Committee remains unconvinced that these type of 

personnel need to be assigned to the nation’s airports in such large 

numbers. In addition, TSA’s original plan, assumed in the budget 

request, for over 300 federal security directors has already been revised to 157 by the agency. Concerning headquarters staffing, given 

the proposed consolidation of TSA into the Department of Homeland Security, the Committee believes the agency should defer a 

portion of planned hiring for headquarters staff until the new department is established. It is almost certain that consolidation will 

allow TSA to utilize the expertise and staffing already resident in 

other agencies for some of these services, including management 

19

analysis, financial management, policy and planning, and human 

resource management. 

Fifthly, TSA’s planned federal workforce goes far beyond the requirements of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which 

required only that screeners be federal employees. For example, the 

agency plans to hire federal exit lane monitors, shoe and bin runners, queue coordinators, and customer service representatives that 

should not be considered part of the screener workforce for the purposes of interpreting federalization. The need for this level of federalization should be reviewed, and would certainly result in greater use of private sector employees, which would be exempt from the 

federal workforce cap. The Committee directs TSA to conduct this 

review, in consultation with the OST Office of General Counsel and 

the Office of Inspector General, and report its findings to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than January 

31, 2003. 

For all of these reasons, the Committee is convinced the agency 

will be able to meet its security responsibilities with no more than 

45,000 full-time permanent positions in the coming year. The Committee also notes that in June 2002 the agency announced that 20 

percent of the projected screener workforce of 54,400 would be 

hired as part-time or seasonal positions. These 10,880 positions 

would not be subject to the staffing cap, allowing the agency to 

achieve total staffing of 55,800, a reduction of approximately 

11,385 from the budget estimate. Conversion of additional positions 

to private industry or part-time federal status would allow an even 

higher staffing level. 

RETIREMENT AND HEALTH BENEFITS

The recommendation makes reductions across all TSA appropriations to remove funds for accrual costs relating to the estimated future retirement and health benefit liabilities of current TSA workers. TSA did not reveal such estimates in its original budget request even though it was included in this government-wide proposal. Upon questioning, the agency informed the Committee that 

such costs are estimated at $247,630,000 in fiscal year 2003. Because the Committee is recommending a lower staffing level at the 

agency, the Committee has reduced these budgeted costs by 

$211,350,000. 

AVIATION SECURITY

The Committee recommends $4,355,726,000 for aviation security 

activities. After accounting for a proposed transfer of support activities to a separate appropriation, the reduction from the budget 

estimate is largely due to approval of a lower staffing level for 

screening activities. Funds are available until expended, and partially offset by offsetting collections, estimated at $2,650,000,000 

from security user fees and $176,691,000 in reimbursements from 

the Federal Aviation Administration for acquisition of explosive detection systems. Funds are available until expended, as authorized. 

The recommendation does not include proposals in the President’s 

budget to allow the use of security fees for non-aviation activities. 

The Committee believes fees paid by aviation travelers and airlines 

should be invested in programs directly benefiting those paying the 

20

fees, not cross-subsidizing other modes of transportation. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended 

level by budget activity is as follows:

FY03 budget

estimate 

Committee

recommended 

Passenger screening ........................................................................................................ $2,479,800,000 $1,786,347,000

Baggage screening .......................................................................................................... 1,446,200,000 1,574,209,000

Cargo screening ............................................................................................................... ............................ 25,000,000

CSRS/FEHBP costs ........................................................................................................... ............................ ¥168,226,000

Airport support/enforcement presence ............................................................................ 1,128,000,000 1,138,396,000

Total ................................................................................................................... 5,054,000,000 4,355,726,000

PASSENGER SCREENING

The Committee recommends $1,786,347,000 for passenger 

screening activities. A comparison of the Committee recommendation to the budget estimate, by budget activity, is as follows:

FY03 budget

estimate 

Committee

recommended 

Passenger screeners ........................................................................................................ $2,149,200,000 $1,731,227,000

Cross training .................................................................................................................. 52,100,000 42,100,000

Credentialing ................................................................................................................... 35,000,000 35,000,000

CAPPS II ........................................................................................................................... 35,000,000 35,000,000

Checkpoint equipment ..................................................................................................... 30,000,000 30,000,000

Electronic surveillance ..................................................................................................... 13,500,000 13,500,000

Checkpoint equipment maintenance ............................................................................... 15,000,000 10,000,000

Support staff ................................................................................................................... (1) ¥260,480,000

Third party screener contracts ........................................................................................ 80,000,000 80,000,000

Planning and deployment ................................................................................................ 70,000,000 70,000,000

Total ................................................................................................................... 2,479,800,000 1,786,347,000

1 Funding of $260,480,000 was distributed among the individual budget lines in the budget request. 

Passenger screeners.—The Committee’s proposed reduction reflects savings in budgeted staffing and salary costs, as explained 

below: 

Staffing reduction.—As discussed previously, the Committee believes that thousands of the budgeted positions in the passenger 

screening workforce are unneeded or could be easily eliminated 

through the use of technology. For example, the Committee has 

been urging TSA for months to quickly replace the obsolete 

magnetometers at most U.S. airports with new, state-of-the-art 

ones already in use in Canada and several European countries. The 

significant improvements in these machines, including a much 

lower false alarm rate, will reduce the need for much of the hand 

wanding that is in TSA’s current operating procedures. Furthermore, it will reduce the number of shoe and bin runners, because 

the current machines are more able to discriminate between threat 

objects and non-harmful metal in shoes. The Committee recommendation provides one-half the number of shoe and bin runners proposed; 70 percent of the hand wanders; and none of the 

ticket checkers, customers service representatives, and queue coordinators. This will reduce the planned workforce by approximately 

7,200 positions, from 32,900 to 25,700. 

Salary savings.—The recommendation reflects savings in the 

workforce hired to date. TSA’s budget assumed that one-half of the 

screeners hired would have prior screening experience, and would 

21

therefore be paid at a higher rate than those individuals without 

screening experience. The Committee understands that the agency 

has not come close to meeting this prior experience hiring goal. The 

recommendation assumes that 25 percent of the workforce will 

have prior screening experience. In addition, the Committee notes 

that TSA budgeted $42,000 for the compensation’ benefits, and supplies of each screener. While this appears reasonable for some 

members of this workforce, the Committee believes the 3,248 exit 

lane monitor positions and 3,407 shoe and bin runner positions 

(half of which are provided) need not be federal employees, and 

need not be compensated at the same level as an x-ray operator. 

These individuals are not screening passengers. The Committee directs TSA to strongly consider the use of contract employees, at 

lower salary and benefits levels, for these workforces, and to explore the use of technologies such as self-closing doors, which would 

obviate the need for the exit lane monitor positions altogether. The 

Committee’s recommendation allows $30,000 per position. In total, these recommendations allow a reduction of $38,718,000 in budgeted funds for screener salaries. 

Part-time and seasonal employees.—At the Committee’s urging, 

TSA announced in June 2002 that 20 percent of the screening 

workforce would be part-time or seasonal employees. The Committee applauds that decision. However, TSA’s budget does not appear to have taken this decision into consideration. The agency’s 

ratio of full-time equivalent (FTE) staffyears to full-time positions 

(FTP) for the screening workforce in fiscal year 2003 is 90.1 percent. If the entire staff worked full-time and were on board for the 

entire fiscal year, the ratio would be 100 percent. Generally, when 

new positions are added to the budget, they are budgeted at 50 percent of a staffyear in the initial year, reflecting the normal time to 

recruit and hire personnel. The Committee’s recommendation assumes a reduction of $20,000,000 reflecting the lower salary and 

benefits costs for a part-time and seasonal workforce compared to 

the original budget submission. 

Attrition rate assumption.—The Committee finds TSA’s assumption of a 25 percent attrition rate for the screener workforce to be 

excessive. While it is accurate that previous attrition rates among 

the contractor screening workforces were as high as 400 percent in 

some airports, the pay and working conditions of the planned federal workforce represent vast improvements over that situation. 

Pay is being doubled, benefits are more attractive, professional 

training is being developed, and new technology is being installed. 

The Committee acknowledges that TSA is likely to experience 

greater attrition in this workforce than many agencies, however, 

and assumes a more reasonable attrition rate of 15 percent for fiscal year 2003. 

Cross-training.—TSA’s budget requested funds to cross-train the 

entire screening workforce during fiscal year 2003. In other words, 

passenger screeners would be trained to serve as baggage screeners, and vice versa. The Committee recommendation reflects the assumption that a smaller workforce will be hired. 

Credentialing.—The Committee recommends $35,000,000, the 

same as the budget estimate. TSA announced an effort to develop 

an industry-wide transportation worker identification card (TWIC) 

earlier this year. Congress expressed its concern over TSA’s plans 

22

in the recently-enacted fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill, and deferred further TWIC activities until these problems could be resolved. The Committee believes the scope of the 

TWIC effort is so grandiose as to be infeasible and unworkable. Deciding the requirements, costs, and financing for card technology to 

allow every transportation worker in every industry in the United 

States to access only the appropriate facilities and job sites would 

take years of industry involvement, and it is unlikely that consensus across all the affected industries could be reached. However, 

the Committee acknowledges that there is a need in the aviation 

industry to test and implement access card technologies that could 

enable aviation industry workers, and potentially trusted travelers, 

to reach their aircraft or job sites in an expedited fashion. The 

Committee provides $35,000,000, and includes bill language specifying that funds shall support pilot projects on the East and West 

Coasts. This is consistent with the agency’s current plan, which is 

to conduct pilot projects in the Los Angeles/Long Beach area in 

California and in the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania—Wilmington, 

Delaware areas on the East Coast. The Committee expects TSA to 

initiate these projects expeditiously, and the bill includes language 

directing TSA to include various card, reader, and database technologies sufficient to make a determination of the program’s costs 

and requirements. The Committee believes it is essential to include 

multiple biometrics on these cards, to verify the true identity of the 

individual carrying them. The Committee understands that the 

card technology with greatest capacity for including biometric information is the optical lasercard, such as that used by the Immigration and Naturalization Service for permanent resident cards 

(‘‘green cards’’) and by the Department of State for border crossing 

cards. These cards have the added benefit of being virtually counterfeit-proof. The Committee does not want TSA to develop new 

technologies if existing ones, already developed by other federal 

agencies, are good enough. Therefore, the Committee strongly encourages TSA to include, as part of these projects, optical lasercard 

technology similar to that used today by the INS. The Committee 

notes that, given the proposed consolidation of INS and TSA into 

the same Department of Homeland Security, TSA’s implementation 

of this technology could provide long-term life cycle cost savings 

and integration with INS’s existing infrastructure. 

Checkpoint equipment maintenance.—The budget estimate includes $15,000,000 for maintenance of checkpoint equipment. The 

Committee believes this requirement is overstated due to TSA’s 

plan to replace the current obsolete magnetometers at security 

checkpoints. Replacement of these systems is scheduled to begin in 

September 2002 and complete by December 2002. New systems are 

expected to be much more reliable, and under warranty during 

their initial start-up period. The Committee expects TSA to ensure 

that the magnetometer replacement schedule does not experience 

further delays, given its importance in improving security as well 

as reducing unnecessary staff. Immediate replacement of the 

magnetometers will reduce the funding requirement by $5,000,000 

in fiscal year 2003. 

Support staff.—As previously described, these funds have been 

consolidated into a new appropriation. 

23

Contract screening locations.—The Aviation and Transportation 

Security Act allows pilot projects at five airports to demonstrate 

the viability of using private sector screening firms under contract, 

rather than using federal employees. The Committee has recently 

learned that TSA intends to require the five airports in this pilot 

program to follow virtually identical operating procedures to TSA’s 

own federal workforce. The Committee believes TSA should review 

this policy, and provide the contract screener pilot locations as 

much operational flexibility as possible, while meeting the same 

overall security requirements. Only in this way will the contractors 

be able to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of the 

contract screening approach. 

Inspection teams.—The Committee believes strongly that TSA 

needs to establish, as a top priority, inspection teams to perform 

undercover testing of federal screening and security activities at 

airports. These inspections were formerly accomplished by two different branches of the FAA, but after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Office of Inspector General was asked to take 

over this function on an interim basis. The Committee believes it 

is time for TSA to take over this function as a routine part of its 

mission. These tests should be rigorous, unannounced, and difficult. Teams should receive special training, such as that provided 

at the European Aviation Security Training Institute, and the 

agency should develop a formal process for recording and following 

up on identified deficiencies. Although the budget does not identify 

funds specifically for these teams, the Committee intends to work 

with TSA to ensure such teams are constituted over the next fiscal 

year, and receive the training and organizational support they require. 

BAGGAGE SCREENING

The Committee recommends $1,574,209,000 for baggage screening, an increase of $128,009,000 above the budget estimate. The 

recommendation largely reflects the Committee’s decision to accelerate investment in labor-saving CT-scan machines, and assumes 

a waiver of up to one year in the time to install explosive detection 

systems. The Administration’s proposal involves the procurement of 

approximately 4,700 explosive trace detection (ETD) systems and 

only 1,100 CT-scan systems. The Committee understands that this 

decision was made in order to meet the December 31, 2002 deadline for installation of EDS systems in all commercial service airports. However, at this point it has become clear that many large 

airports have no hope of meeting this deadline, and doing so would 

create chaos in the lobbies of major airports and legitimate security 

concerns due to the creation of long, stagnant lines. This plan 

would also create significant government liabilities from the manual opening and searching of a large volume of checked baggage, 

tremendous customer inconvenience, privacy concerns, and billions 

in unnecessary expense. TSA officials have recently acknowledged 

that 30–40 airports will not meet the deadline. The Committee believes a significant number of airports will not meet the deadline, 

and will need additional funding, provided in this bill, for the more 

efficient CT-scan systems, the large majority of which can be installed in-line with airport baggage handling systems. 

24

The provisions and funding in this bill, combined with the already-passed waiver provisions, allow a more sensible approach to 

the ramp-up in airport security, considering the lessons learned 

since passage of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act last 

November. While the Committee strongly endorses the goals of that 

Act to improve security, it is obvious by now that, expecting a new 

agency to procure, install, and staff enough equipment to screen 

100 percent of checked baggage at 429 commercial service airports—compared to screening of less than 10 percent one year 

ago—was impossible to accomplish, without huge waste of federal 

funds, in thirteen months. The Committee recommendation abandons this folly, and allows TSA to pursue an effective course resulting in the same level of security, on a much faster timetable, at far 

less cost to the Federal Government and less invasion of privacy 

to the traveling public which is paying for the service.

A comparison of the Committee recommendation to the budget 

estimate, by budget activity, is as follows:

FY03 budget

estimate 

Committee

recommended 

Baggage screeners .......................................................................................................... $1,310,100,000 $1,110,100,000 

Detection equipment maintenance .................................................................................. 75,000,000 75,000,000 

Cross-training .................................................................................................................. 9,700,000 8,500,000 

Checked baggage data system ....................................................................................... 1,400,000 1,400,000 

Support staff ................................................................................................................... 1 ¥170,791,000 

EDS systems—procurement ............................................................................................ 50,000,000 275,000,000 

EDS/ETD systems—airport modifications ....................................................................... ............................ 275,000,000

Total ................................................................................................................... 1,446,200,000 1,574,209,000 

1 Funding of $170,791,000 was distributed among the individual budget lines in the budget request. 

Baggage screeners.—The recommendation assumes savings of $200,000,000 due to staffing size and salary adjustments. The Committee has included additional funds for the procurement of CTscan or other high-throughput systems that can be installed in-line 

at airports. These systems require one-fifth to one-third of the 

staffing required for trace detection machines because of the automated nature of the operation. This additional funding, will result 

in a need for far less staffing than the 21,500 included in the budget estimate. The recommendation assumes savings of approximately 15 percent. 

Cross-training.—As described in a previous section of this report, the recommendation reduces cross-training, from $9,700,000 to 

$8,500,000. 

Support staff.—As described in a previous section of this report, 

the recommendation consolidates support staff costs into a separate 

appropriation. 

EDS systems procurement.—The Committee recommends 

$451,691,000 for procurement of additional explosive detection systems (EDS). The Administration included $50,000,000 for additional systems in fiscal year 2003. These funds, which include 

$176,691,000 to be transferred from FAA, ‘‘Facilities and equipment’’, shall be used to procure additional CT-scan systems, or 

other systems with high throughput rates, with a focus on installing these systems in-line at airports. In addition, the bill includes 

a provision, already passed the House of Representatives as part 

of H.R. 5005, which specifies that EDS systems required pursuant 

to Public Law 107–71 must be acquired by the Department of 

25

Transportation. The Committee does not believe that individual 

airports or the FAA’s ‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ program should 

be responsible for these new federal requirements. 

Pilot project, Denver International Airport, CO.—The Committee 

understands that Denver International Airport has requested that 

TSA approve their proposal to utilize a high throughput system 

currently in use in Europe. The Committee believes TSA should 

strongly consider this request, consistent with current detection requirements, in order to expedite the evaluation of this technology. 

Certification process.—Over a period of many years, the FAA developed a lengthy process for certification of EDS systems. This 

process has not been replicated anywhere else in the world, and 

does not apply to other technologies such as trace detection systems. Prior to September 11th, 2001, this process ensured the delivery of highly sophisticated machines, able to meet stressing 

bomb detection requirements, at very few airports. By contrast, European airports proliferated bomb detection systems with different 

requirements at a far higher percentage of airports. In order to 

meet the certification process, the current CT-scan systems are limited in throughput rate, which may have been satisfactory when 

the nation was screening a very low percentage of overall bags. 

However, the current requirement to screen all bags puts enormous 

pressure not only on the manufacturing base for certified machines, 

but also on available resources. Because of the lack of a manufacturing base for certified systems, and the inability of other systems 

to meet the certification process during fiscal year 2002, earlier 

this year TSA decided to forego the use of CT-scan systems in most 

airports, and instead substitute the use of trace detection machines, which are not subject to any certification standard. The outcome is an unfair competition between the two types of technologies, which provides perverse incentives for the agency to favor 

the technology that has higher life cycle costs and is the most intrusive to passengers. The Committee directs TSA to review the 

current process for evaluating and certifying EDS systems, and 

find ways to expedite the certification of new systems on the horizon which could provide vast improvements in throughput over the 

current generation of systems. 

EDS/ETD systems, airport modifications.—The recommendation 

includes $275,000,000 for airport modifications necessary to accommodate EDS and ETD systems. An additional $738,000,000 was 

appropriated for this purpose in fiscal year 2002, bringing the total 

available to $1,013,000,000. Additional funds are needed given the 

Committee recommendation to install a higher percentage of CTscan systems and the assumption that airports will be allowed 

waivers of the current deadline. These funds will increase the number of airports which are able to place their bomb detection systems 

in-line. TSA’s funding level assumed large numbers of trace detection systems as an interim measure, and very few in-line CT-scan 

systems. 

CARGO SCREENING

The Committee recommends $25,000,000 to continue improvements in the cargo screening process. The budget estimate included 

no funds for this purpose. TSA continues to note the deficiencies 

26

in the current screening process, and the Committee believes that 

additional funding is crucial at this time. 

AIRPORT SUPPORT AND ENFORCEMENT PRESENCE

The Committee recommends $1,138,396,000 for airport support 

and enforcement presence. This budget activity finances the costs 

of federal security directors and their support staff at airports as 

well as checkpoint law enforcement officers required by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. A comparison of the Committee recommendation to the budget estimate is as follows:

FY03 budget

estimate 

Committee

recommended 

Airport support ................................................................................................................. $380,500,000 $359,664,000

Law enforcement ............................................................................................................. 491,500,000 416,500,000

Reimbursable agreements ............................................................................................... 226,000,000 250,000,000

Support staff ................................................................................................................... 1 ¥49,727,000

Cockpit door reimbursement ........................................................................................... 100,000,000 150,000,000

Commercial pilot firearms training ................................................................................. 20,000,000

CSRS/FEHBP costs ........................................................................................................... ¥18,041,000

K–9 units ......................................................................................................................... 10,000,000 10,000,000

Total ................................................................................................................... $1,228,000,000 $1,138,396,000

1 Funding of $49,727,000 was distributed among the individual budget lines in the budget request. 

Airport support.—The reduction of $20,836,000 reflects TSA’s decision, made since submission of the budget request, to hire only 

157 federal security directors at the nation’s airports, instead of 

314 who were expected to be onboard at the end of fiscal year 2002 

in the original plan. 

Law enforcement.—TSA’s budget assumed the hire of 3,000 federal law enforcement officers (LEOs). The Committee believes that 

savings are possible through greater use of state and local law enforcement officers. Consequently, funds have been reduced in this 

budget line, but raised under ‘‘reimbursable agreements’’, which finances state and local LEO reimbursement. In addition, the bill includes provisions amending current law which make it clear that 

TSA has the flexibility to hire either federal or non-federal officers 

to fill checkpoint LEO responsibilities. The Administration requested this change as part of proposed technical amendments to 

the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which were submitted to the Congress on July 30, 2002. 

Former FAA civil aviation security personnel.—The Committee 

notes that TSA has replaced many of FAA’s previous responsibilities with new positions with little or no review of whether that 

workforce should be reduced over time. For example, the agency 

has taken onto its payroll former FAA employees serving as airport-based federal security managers, but has hired, in most cases, 

new individuals to serve as TSA federal security directors and deputy directors. The Committee believes the positions held by former 

FAA personnel in field offices requires immediate review by TSA 

to determine whether there is a firm requirement for this entire 

workforce. The Committee directs TSA to provide a detailed report 

on the number, types, and responsibilities of these positions, and 

the requirement for their retention, to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than February 15, 2003. The 

Committee recommendation assumes that significant reductions 

will be possible in this workforce through attrition. 

27

Criminal investigators.—The recommendation includes a reduction in the number of criminal investigators. The budget justifications explain that these personnel will be ‘‘investigating crimes and 

suspicious activity, preventing crimes, and serving as a deterrent’’ to illegal activity at airports. The Committee does not agree that 

the TSA should have substantial sums of investigative personnel 

assigned permanently to airports investigating activity the agency 

deems suspicious, and believes this goes far beyond the mandate 

established for TSA by the Aviation and Transportation Security 

Act. The number of these positions should be minimized, and they 

should be based out of headquarters or out of regional service centers, where they can be assigned to cases as they arise, and not 

trolling through airports looking for suspicious activity. 

Reimbursable agreements.—The recommendation provides an ad- ditional $24,000,000 reflecting greater usage of state and local resources rather than full-time federal personnel. 

Support staff.—As discussed previously, these costs have been 

consolidated into a separate budget line. 

Cockpit door reimbursement.—The Committee provides $150,000,000 for TSA to reimburse airlines for the costs of complying with departmental mandates to retrofit all commercial aircraft with phase II hardened cockpit doors no later than April 9, 

2003. The Committee strongly supports this effort, but believes 

that the extraordinary nature and short timeframe of this mandate 

justify federal investment. In addition, some airlines may not be 

able to make all the necessary modifications during scheduled 

maintenance periods. If this occurs, airlines may have to take aircraft out of revenue service to meet the deadline, which would be 

especially difficult given the industry’s difficult financial situation. 

An emergency appropriation of $100,000,000 was provided to support this effort in fiscal year 2002. The Committee also notes that 

$7,000,000 of the fiscal year 2002 funds were reprogrammed and 

used for aircraft video surveillance and related technologies. The 

Committee believes this use of funding should have gone through 

the reprogramming process, as it constituted a new activity not 

previously justified or contemplated by the appropriation, and reminds the department of the need to follow established procedures. 

Cargo Aircraft Cockpit Doors.—In the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, P.L. 107–71 (‘‘ATSA’’), Congress required reinforced flight deck doors for passenger aircraft only, not for all-cargo 

aircraft. This recognized a clear distinction in security needs between passenger and all-cargo operations, in particular the fact 

that all-cargo carriers are not in the business of transporting 

strangers, and thus can confidently identify and screen all persons 

having access to their aircraft. That capability is being employed 

through a variety of new procedures and requirements, including 

the Security Program for Aircraft 12,500 Pounds or More, Docket 

No. TSA–2002–11604, scheduled for implementation by December 

1, 2002, and through new rules governing jumpseat access. However, in implementing the Congressional mandate, the Federal 

Aviation Administration extended it to cover all-cargo aircraft as 

well, and did so effective immediately, without notice and opportunity for comment. 

Congress has provided funds to reimburse the airlines for the 

costs of installing cockpit door improvements. It makes sense to 

28

focus available resources first, as Congress did in the Aviation and 

Transportation Security Act, on the highest security priority—flight 

deck doors on passenger carriers. The Committee has included a 

provision that requires the Under Secretary for Transportation Security to review whether it is necessary to apply the cockpit door 

strengthening requirements to all-cargo carriers before requiring 

such modifications. 

Commercial pilot firearms training.—The Committee recommends $20,000,000, as requested, to defray costs of a Housepassed bill which requires the agency to provide use of force and 

firearms training to any commercial airline pilot requesting such 

training. 

MARITIME AND LAND SECURITY

The Committee recommends $206,864,000 for maritime and land 

transportation security, an increase of $159,064,000 above the 

budget estimate. A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

FY03 budget

estimate 

Committee

recommended 

Port security grants ......................................................................................................... ............................ $150,000,000

Staff ................................................................................................................................. $23,000,000 23,000,000

Information technology .................................................................................................... 4,800,000 4,800,000

Nuclear detection and monitoring systems .................................................................... ............................ 4,000,000

Support staff ................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥1,239,000

CSRS/FEHBP cost ............................................................................................................. ............................ ¥697,000

Trucking safety grants .................................................................................................... 20,000,000 27,000,000

Total ................................................................................................................... 47,800,000 206,864,000

Port security grants.—The Committee recommends $150,000,000, 

an increase of $150,000,000 above the amount in the budget estimate. There are 361 public ports in the United States. Shipments 

through these ports account for over 95 percent of the nation’s 

overseas trade. The Committee believes it is imperative for the 

Federal Government to assist local port authorities in their most 

pressing security needs. The Committee expects the Undersecretary to consult with local port authorities regarding potential 

grants affecting their port before grants are awarded, to ensure 

adequate coordination with local communities. 

Staff.—The Committee recommends $23,000,000 for TSA to continue to build staff expertise in the area of maritime and land 

transportation security. This is expected to finance the hire of 225 

positions, the same as the budget estimate. 

Information technology.—The Committee recommends $4,800,000 

for information technology projects, including a container tracking 

project known as Operation Safe Commerce and a container threat 

assessment project. This is the same as the budget estimate. 

Nuclear detection and monitoring systems.—The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for continued evaluation and acquisition of 

nuclear detection and monitoring systems. Funding of $4,000,000 

was provided in fiscal year 2002. 

Trucking safety grants.—The Committee recommends 

$27,000,000 for continued improvements in trucking safety. The 

recommended level includes $20,000,000, as requested, for activities in the budget amendment submitted in September 2002. In adVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
29

dition, the recommended level includes $5,000,000 for a hazardous 

materials safety permit program and $2,000,000 for a truck security pilot program. 

Hazardous materials safety permit program.—The Committee 

recommends $5,000,000 to implement the permit program required 

by law for those motor carriers transporting the most dangerous 

hazardous materials. Given that this permit program is especially 

critical now in light of truck security concerns, TSA should ensure 

that it is implemented within one year from the date of enactment 

of this Act. The Committee would not oppose the conduct of this 

program by FMCSA on a reimbursable basis. 

Truck security pilot program.—The Committee understands that 

technology exists from a number of manufacturers that allows 

trucks to be remotely tracked and controlled. The TSA and the 

FMCSA may decide to mandate the use of such systems in the permit program discussed above. So that TSA and FMCSA may completely understand the performance characteristics of such systems, 

the Committee has included $2,000,000 for a pilot program. 

Support staff.—As previously discussed, funding for support staff 

has been consolidated in a new budget line. 

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends $129,519,000 for research and development, a reduction of $681,000 below the budget estimate. The 

reductions involve the consolidation of support costs (¥$385,000) 

and a removal of retirement and health benefit accrual costs 

(¥$296,000). 

A comparison of the budget estimate to the Committee recommended level by budget activity is as follows:

FY03 budget

estimate 

Committee

recommended 

Laboratory space/research facility .................................................................................. $5,000,000 $5,000,000

Next generation EDS ........................................................................................................ 100,000,000 100,000,000

Applied R&D .................................................................................................................... 20,000,000 20,000,000

Staffing ............................................................................................................................ 5,200,000 5,200,000

Support staff ................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥385,000

CSRS/FEHBP costs ........................................................................................................... ............................ ¥296,000

Total ................................................................................................................... 130,200,000 129,519,000

Walk-through portals.—The Committee remains supportive of 

non-invasive explosive trace detection walk-through portals. These 

portals can be used in airports to guard against explosives carried 

by individuals. This equipment should be evaluated as soon as possible to test enhanced checkpoint security. The Committee encourages TSA to use up to $2,000,000 in research and development 

funding to purchase and deploy this equipment for evaluation in 

airports. 

SUPPORT SERVICES

The Committee recommends $453,891,000 for activities in support of TSA missions. In the budget request, these costs were largely distributed, on a pro rata share, to the individual programs, 

projects, and activities. In order to more properly account for the 

direct cost of various TSA activities, and to foster greater CongresVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
30

sional oversight, the Committee consolidates these funds in a single appropriation. Additional discussion and guidance is provided 

in a classified annex to this report. 

COAST GUARD 

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2003 PROGRAM

The Coast Guard, as it is known today, was established on January 28, 1915, through the merger of the Revenue Cutter Service 

and the Lifesaving Service. This was followed by transfers to the 

Coast Guard of the United States Lighthouse Service in 1939 and 

the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation in 1942. The 

Coast Guard has as its primary responsibilities enforcing all applicable federal laws on the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; promoting the safety of life and property at sea; aiding navigation; protecting the marine environment; 

and maintaining a state of readiness to function as a specialized 

service of the Navy in time of war. 

Including funds for national security activities and retired pay 

accounts, the Committee recommends a total program level of 

$6,060,978,000 for activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2003. 

This is $566,319,000 (10.3 percent) above the fiscal year 2002 program level. 

The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2002 program levels, the fiscal year 2003 program requests, and the Committee’s 

recommendations:

Program 

Fiscal year— Committee

recommended 2002 enacted 2003 estimate 

Operating expenses ................................................................... $3,780,150,000 $4,153,456,000 $4,305,456,000 

Acquisition, construction, and improvements .......................... 964,354,000 725,000,000 725,000,000 

Environmental compliance and restoration .............................. 16,927,000 17,000,000 17,000,000 

Alteration of bridges ................................................................. 15,466,000 .............................. 17,000,000 

Retired pay ................................................................................ 876,346,000 889,000,000 889,000,000 

Reserve training ........................................................................ 83,194,000 86,522,000 86,522,000 

Research, development, test, and evaluation .......................... 20,222,000 22,000,000 21,000,000 

Navigation service user fees .................................................... .............................. ¥165,000,000 ..............................

Total ............................................................................. 5,767,659,000 5,892,978,000 6,060,978,000

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 1 ................................................... $3,780,150,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 2 ................................................. 4,153,456,000 

Recommended in the bill 3 ............................................................. 4,305,456,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .............................................. +525,306,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............................................ +152,000,000

1 Includes $440,000,000 for national security activities scored in budget function 050 and $409,150,000 in 

supplemental emergency appropriations. 2 Includes $340,000,000 for national security activities scored in budget function 050 and offsetting collections of $165,000,000 from proposed new user fees. 3 Includes $1,300,000,000 for national security activities scored in budget function 050. 

This appropriation provides funding for the operation and maintenance of multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and shore units strategically located along the coasts and inland waterways of the United 

States and in selected areas overseas. This is the primary appropriation financing operational activities of the Coast Guard. 

31

Including $1,300,000,000 for national security activities, the 

Committee recommends a total of $4,305,456,000 for operating activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2003, an increase of 

$525,306,000 (13.9 percent) above the fiscal year 2002 appropriation and $152,000,000 above budget request. 

Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are discussed below: 

Homeland security liaison billets.—The Committee recommends 

no funding for homeland security liaison billets, a reduction of 

$4,094,000 below the budget estimate. The budget requested funds 

for 43 new positions, to be detailed to other agencies to coordinate 

homeland security efforts and provide assistance in homeland security activities. If necessary, the Committee believes these positions 

should be funded via reimbursable agreement with the agencies receiving the support, not through new appropriations to the Coast 

Guard. Further, since this budget request was submitted, the administration has proposed the establishment of a Department of 

Homeland Security. Future appropriations to this new department 

should obviate the need for a large number of temporary detailees 

from other federal agencies. 

Polar icebreaking reimbursement.—The Committee is disappointed that the fiscal year 2003 budget reverses a recent trend 

toward greater reimbursement of the Coast Guard’s expenses for 

polar icebreaking. The following data shows the amount of reimbursements received by the Coast Guard for these services for the 

past five years and the percentage of total program costs reimbursed:

Fiscal year Reimbursements % of total cost reimbursed 

1999 ................................................................................................................................. $2,711,000 12

2000 ................................................................................................................................. 2,145,000 8

2001 ................................................................................................................................. 4,966,000 13

2002 ................................................................................................................................. 9,664,000 25

2003 estimate ................................................................................................................. 6,515,000 17

The Committee believes the Coast Guard should seek to achieve 

the same level of reimbursements for polar icebreaking services as 

estimated for fiscal year 2002. The Committee recommendation assumes the Coast Guard will achieve that goal, allowing a reduction 

of $3,149,000 in direct appropriations with no effect on the overall 

program. 

Response boat—small.—The recommendation includes an additional $10,000,000 for the Coast Guard to accelerate replacement 

of the existing non-standard boat inventory. The Coast Guard is 

planning this replacement under a project known as response 

boat—small. However, the Coast Guard is planning a seven year 

replacement cycle, despite the fact that 30 percent of these boats 

are beyond their design life already. In addition, the boats are 

being utilized significantly more hours each month, often with deferred maintenance, to satisfy new homeland security requirements. These assets are critical for two of the service’s highest priority missions: homeland security and search and rescue. 

Small boat station/command center readiness.—The bill includes 

an additional $10,000,000 to continue the high priority initiatives 

begun in fiscal year 2002 to address longstanding readiness defiVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
32

ciencies at the Coast Guard small boat stations and command centers. 

Maritime search and rescue.—The recommendation transfers the 

following items to ‘‘Acquisition, construction, and improvements’’, to more appropriately reflect the nature of the work being performed. These are flight data recorders/cockpit data recorders 

($2,700,000) and self-contained breathing apparatus ($1,115,000). 

Vessel traffic system, Corpus Christi, TX.—The recommendation 

transfers this item to ‘‘Acquisition, construction, and improvements’’, to more appropriately reflect the nature of the work being 

performed. 

High interest vessel control follow-on/personnel support costs.— The Committee recommendation reduces by one-half the requested 

increase in funds for personnel support costs. Based upon the budget justifications and information submitted for the hearing record, 

these costs appear unrelated to the high interest vessel control program. This results in a reduction of $3,776,000 below the budget 

estimate. 

Maritime safety and security teams.—The budget requested funds 

to establish two new maritime safety and security teams (MSSTs) 

in fiscal year 2003, increasing the total number of teams from four 

to six. According to the Coast Guard, the service has located resources to stand up five MSSTs in fiscal year 2002, reducing the 

startup costs needed in fiscal year 2003. The recommendation recognizes this program change, and provides the necessary resources 

to start up the sixth MSST in the coming fiscal year. This results 

in a reduction below the budget estimate of $6,340,000. In addition, 

the recommendation deletes the $3,731,000 requested for additional 

staffing of coastal and oceangoing buoy tenders. The Coast Guard 

has not adequately explained how this staffing is related to homeland security missions or the maritime safety and security teams. 

Security readiness and planning.—The Committee has deleted 

the requested increases for additional attorneys ($1,767,000) and 

contract administrators ($395,000). The Coast Guard has not adequately explained how this staffing is related to homeland security 

missions or security readiness and planning. If the Coast Guard 

has additional legal or contracting requirements arising from 

homeland security activities, the service should seek to reassign existing staff from support activities which are now of lower priority. 

Incident command system.—The Committee is not convinced that 

the Coast Guard needs 14 new full-time public affairs specialists to 

handle the workload arising from last year’s terrorist attacks. The 

service already has 96 public affairs specialists, including 32 at 

headquarters and 64 at various field units. Larger field units 

where homeland security activities are centered have already allocated significant public affairs resources. For example, seven billets 

each are assigned to Coast Guard offices in Miami, Florida and 

Portsmouth, Virginia. Particularly given the expected transition of 

the Coast Guard to the proposed Department of Homeland Security, the service should defer such hiring until the consolidation determines whether additional support staff are truly necessary. This 

results in a reduction of $1,400,000 below the budget estimate. 

Ammunition funding.—The Committee is concerned over the rising costs of the Coast Guard’s ammunition budget. For the past 

four fiscal years (1999–2002), the Coast Guard’s budget for ammuVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
33

nition averaged $826,051 per year. This reflects the 12 percent increase experienced in fiscal year 2002 after the September 2001 

terrorist attacks, which brought 2002 expenditures to an estimated 

$1,034,888. By contrast, the fiscal year 2003 budget requests 

$10,122,888 for ammunition—ten times the amount experienced in 

past years. Coast Guard officials explain that this cost increase is 

largely due to the desire to purchase environmental-friendly ammunition, which is far more expensive than regular ammunition. 

Information provided to the Committee indicates that this so-called 

‘‘green ammo’’ is, in many cases, twice as expensive as traditional 

types of ammunition. The Committee has been unable to determine 

the necessity of this requirement. Although the Committee recommends the full amount of the Coast Guard’s request, the Committee encourages the Coast Guard and the department to review 

the requirement for the procurement of ‘‘green ammo’’. Homeland security budget presentation.—The Committee has 

found several instances in the Coast Guard’s budget where items 

of questionable contribution to homeland security activities were 

included within the homeland security request. These include public affairs specialists, attorneys, and additional staffing for oceangoing and coastal buoy tenders. Although the Committee intends to 

provide full funding for necessary homeland security requirements, 

the Committee cautions the Coast Guard to ensure that, in development of future budgets, items unrelated to homeland security are 

not presented in the budget under homeland security categories. 

Great Lakes pilotage.—The Committee understands that the 

Coast Guard has before it a proposal to streamline and modernize 

the pilotage system on the Great Lakes. The Committee urges the 

Coast Guard to ensure that this proposal receives all due consideration. This should include a full review by the Great Lakes Pilotage 

Advisory Committee. The Coast Guard should also ensure that all 

elements of the Great Lakes maritime industry have an opportunity to comment on the proposal and participate in its development. 

Pier safety study.—On May 18, 2000, a 140 foot section of pier 

34 on the Delaware River in Philadelphia collapsed, killing three 

people and injuring several others. The Committee understands 

that there are currently no federal safety standards for piers. The 

Committee directs the Coast Guard to undertake a study of pier 

safety, including recommendations for improving pier safety. Such 

study shall be submitted to the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations no later than six months after enactment of this 

Act. 

Fuel tank safety.—The Committee understands that the Department of Defense has tested the success of alumimum mesh technology in preventing explosions in fuel tanks and storage containers, regardless of ignition source. Given the need to increase security at our ports and elsewhere, the Coast Guard is directed to 

review whether such technology would be beneficial in protecting 

public safety at Coast Guard facilities, and report on the results of 

such review to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by July 1, 2003. 

Dual use technologies.—The Coast Guard has critical responsibilities in both counter-drug and counter-terror operations. The Committee is aware that technology exists which is able to simultaVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
34

neously detect minute quantities of narcotics as well as explosives 

on individuals, baggage, vehicles, cargo, and documents. These 

dual-use devices can reduce Coast Guard manpower and maintenance costs and provide synergies between these two missions. The 

Committee encourages the Coast Guard to evaluate and utilize 

these dual-use technology systems. 

BILL LANGUAGE

Defense-related activities.—The bill specifies that $1,300,000,000 

of the total amount provided is for national security-related activities. This level is $860,000,000 above the level enacted for fiscal 

year 2002 and $960,000,000 above the budget estimate. 

GENERAL PROVISION

Vessel traffic safety fairway, Santa Barbara/San Francisco.—The 

bill continues as a general provision (Sec. 311) language that would 

prohibit funds to plan, finalize, or implement regulations that 

would establish a vessel traffic safety fairway less than five miles 

wide between the Santa Barbara traffic separation scheme and the 

San Francisco traffic separation scheme. On April 27, 1989, the Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would 

narrow the originally proposed five-mile-wide fairway to two onemile-wide fairways separated by a two-mile-wide area where offshore oil rigs could be built if Lease Sale 119 goes forward. Under 

this revised proposal, vessels would be routed in close proximity to 

oil rigs because the two-mile-wide non-fairway corridor could contain drilling rigs at the edge of the fairways. The Committee is concerned that this rule, if implemented, could increase the threat of 

offshore oil accidents off the California coast. Accordingly, the bill 

continues the language prohibiting the implementation of this regulation. 

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 1 ................................................... $702,354,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................... 725,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................... 725,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .............................................. +22,646,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............................................ ................................ 1 Includes $328,000,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations. 

This capital appropriation finances the acquisition of new capital 

assets, construction of new facilities, and physical improvements to 

existing facilities and assets. The appropriation covers Coast 

Guard-owned and operated vessels, aircraft, shore facilities, and 

other equipment such as computer systems, as well as the personnel needed to manage acquisition activities. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The recommended bill includes $725,000,000 for this appropriation, including $500,000,000 for the Integrated Deepwater Systems 

(‘‘deepwater’’) program. The bill fully funds the high priority National Distress System Modernization Project. 

Consistent with past practice, the bill includes language distributing the total appropriation by budget activity and providing separate obligation availabilities appropriate for the type of activity 

35

being performed. The Committee continues to believe that these obligation availabilities provide fiscal discipline and reduce long-term 

unobligated balances. 

The following table compares the fiscal year 2002 enacted level, 

the fiscal year 2003 estimate, and the recommended level by program, project and activity:

Program name Fiscal year 2002

enacted

Fiscal year 2003

estimate

House

recommended

Vessels ............................................................................................ $127,740,000 $13,600,000 $11,715,000

Survey and design—cutters and boats ................................ 500,000 400,000 400,000

Seagoing buoy tender (WLB) replacement ............................ 68,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000

Polar class icebreaker reliability improvement program ...... 4,490,000 2,200,000 2,200,000

41 foot utility boat replacement ........................................... 12,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000

85-Foot fast patrol craft ....................................................... 4,650,000 ............................ ............................

Alex Haley conversion project ................................................ ............................ 3,000,000 ............................

Boarding and escort patrol boats (CPBs) ............................. 24,000,000 ............................ ............................

87-foot CPB small boat replacement .................................... 2,100,00 ............................ ............................

Shipboard contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) ............... ............................ ............................ 1,115,000

Aircraft ............................................................................................ 209,500,000 ............................ 2,700,000

Aviation parts and support ................................................... 9,000,000 ............................ ............................

C–130J system provisioning and training support analyses 500,000 ............................ ............................

FDRs/CVRs ............................................................................. ............................ ............................ 2,700,000

Other Equipment ............................................................................. 107,022,000 117,700,000 114,200,000

Ports and waterways safety system (PAWSS) ....................... 28,929,000 5,000,000 8,600,000

Marine information for safety and law enforcement (MISLE) 7,450,000 ............................ ............................

National distress system modernization ............................... 42,000,000 90,000,000 90,000,000

Defense message system implementation ............................ 6,300,000 2,100,000 ............................

Commercial satellite communications .................................. 1,500,000 ............................ ............................

Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) ........ 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000

Search and Rescue Capabilities Enhancement Project ........ 1,320,000 ............................ ............................

Thirteenth district microwave modernization project ............ 800,000 3,000,000 3,000,000

Hawaii Rainbow communications system modernization ..... 3,100,000 3,000,000 3,000,000

High frequency recapitalization and modernization .............. 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000

Command center readiness/infrastructure recapitalization .. 727,000 ............................ ............................

P–250 pump replacement ..................................................... 2,046,000 ............................ ............................

Configuration management—phase II .................................. 3,000,000 ............................ ............................

Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) replacement .... 1,000,000 ............................ ............................

Maritime electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors for cutters/boats .......................................................................... 4,000,000 ............................ ............................

Ice detecting radar—Cordova, AK ........................................ 650,000 ............................ ............................

Prince William Sound WAN replacement, AK ......................... ............................ 1,000,000 1,000,000

Maritime domain awareness information management ....... ............................ 9,400,000 4,400,000

Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation ......................................... 135,271,000 28,700,000 31,385,000

Survey and design—shore projects ...................................... 4,000,000 2,500,000 5,500,000

Minor AC&I shore construction projects ................................ 4,000,000 4,900,000 4,900,000

Housing .................................................................................. 13,500,000 7,000,000 7,000,000

Waterways ATON projects ...................................................... 5,500,000 4,900,000 4,900,000

Rebuild Coast Guard Station, Port Huron, MI ....................... 3,100,000 ............................ ............................

Consolidate warehouse—Coast Guard Yard, MD ................. 12,600,000 ............................ ............................

Construct new Station—Brunswick, GA ................................ 3,600,000 ............................ ............................

Replace utilities, ISC building number 8—Boston, MA ....... 1,600,000 ............................ ............................

Construct engineering building, ISC Honolulu—Honolulu, HI 7,200,000 ............................ ............................

Consolidate Kodiak aviation support—Kodiak, AK ............... 5,700,000 4,000,000 4,000,000

Reconstruction North Wall, Escanaba Municipal Dock, MI ... 300,000 ............................ ............................

Rebuild ISC Seattle Pier 36—Phase I .................................. 10,000,000 ............................ ............................

Coast Guard Marine Safety & Rescue Station—Chicago, IL 2,000,000 ............................ ............................

Construct new station—Manistee, MI .................................. ............................ 5,400,000 5,085,000

Homeland security shore infrastructure support ................... 8,171,000 ............................ ............................

Station Oak Island, NC fire damage repair/rebuild .............. 4,000,000 ............................ ............................

Personnel and Related Support ...................................................... 64,631,000 75,846,000 65,000,000

Direct personnel costs ........................................................... 63,931,000 64,500,000 64,500,000

Core acquisition costs ........................................................... 700,000 500,000 500,000

Integrated Deepwater Systems ....................................................... 320,190,000 500,000,000 500,000,000

Aircraft ................................................................................... 35,700,000 138,200,000 138,200,000

Surface ships ......................................................................... 36,700,000 215,700,000 215,700,000

C4ISR ..................................................................................... 106,500,000 ............................ ............................

36

Program name Fiscal year 2002

enacted

Fiscal year 2003

estimate

House

recommended

Logistics ................................................................................. 71,200,000 71,600,000 16,600,000

Shore facilities ....................................................................... ............................ ............................ 7,200,000

System engineering and integration ..................................... ............................ ............................ 47,800,000

Other contracts ...................................................................... 39,800,000 43,500,000 43,500,000

Government program management ....................................... 30,290,000 31,000,000 31,000,000

Total appropriation ............................................................ 702,354,000 725,000,000 725,000,000

VESSELS

The Committee recommends $11,715,000 for vessels, $1,885,000 

below the budget estimate. Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are as shown below. 

Alex Haley conversion project.—The recommendation deletes the 

$3,000,000 requested for this project in order to fund higher budget 

priorities. 

41-foot utility boat replacement.—The bill includes $4,000,000 to 

continue acquisition of a replacement for the current 41-foot utility 

boat under a program now known as ‘‘response boat—medium’’. 

The Committee directs the Coast Guard to acquire these boats following a full and open competition among private shipyards, and 

not to engage in production of this asset in government facilities 

such as the Coast Guard Yard. 

Shipboard contained breathing apparatus (SCBA).—The bill includes $1,115,000 in this appropriation, a transfer from ‘‘Operating 

expenses’’. This is the same as the budget estimate. 

AIRCRAFT

The Committee recommends $2,700,000 for aircraft, which is the 

same amount above the budget estimate. The recommendation includes $2,700,000 in this appropriation for flight data recorders 

and cockpit voice recorders, a transfer from ‘‘Operating expenses’’. This is the same as the budget estimate. 

OTHER EQUIPMENT

The Committee recommends $114,200,000 for other equipment, a 

reduction of $3,500,000 below the budget estimate and $7,178,000 

above the amount provided for fiscal year 2002. Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are explained below: 

Ports and waterways safety system.—The bill includes $8,600,000, 

an increase of $3,600,000 above the budget estimate. The increase 

reflects a transfer of funds for VTS Corpus Christi, Texas from 

‘‘Operating expenses’’. The recommended funding, including the 

transfer, is the same as the budget estimate for these items. 

Defense message system implementation.—The recommendation 

deletes the $2,100,000 requested for this program, as these requirements were financed in the recently-enacted supplemental appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002. 

Maritime domain awareness information management.—The 

Committee recommends $4,400,000 for this project, a reduction of 

$5,000,000 below the budget estimate. The recommendation defers 

computer upgrade of the Maritime Information System for Law Enforcement (MISLE). A recent audit of the U.S. General Accounting 

Office has raised serious concerns over cost overruns in this proVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
37

gram. Based upon these issues, the Committee believes further upgrades should be deferred. 

SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION

The Committee recommends $31,385,000 for shore facilities and 

aids to navigation, an increase of $2,685,000 above the budget estimate. Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are detailed 

below. 

Survey and design, shore projects.—The recommendation includes 

$5,500,000, an increase of $3,000,000 above the budget estimate. 

Over the past five fiscal years, appropriations for this program 

have averaged $5,397,000. The Committee believes the proposed reduction to $2,500,000 is too severe, and would compromise the 

Coast Guard’s ability to address critical housing and shore facility 

needs. Maintaining an adequate shore facility budget is especially 

critical as the service accommodates a growing workforce for expanded homeland security missions. The recommended level restores funding to the average experienced over the past five years. 

Station Manistee, MI.—The recommendation includes $5,085,000, 

a reduction of $315,000 due to budget constraints.

Short-range aids to navigation.—The bill includes $4,900,000 for 

short-range waterways aids to navigation projects, which are critical to ensure safe and economical passage through our nation’s 

waterways. These funds are expected to be distributed as follows:

Location Amount 

Delaware River, DE ............................................................................... $950,000 

Chesapeake Bay, MD ............................................................................ 850,000 

Houston-Galveston, TX ......................................................................... 1,400,000 

Cape Fear River, NC ............................................................................. 765,000 

Pascagoula, MS ...................................................................................... 100,000 

Columbia River, WA .............................................................................. 21,000 

Agat, Guam ............................................................................................ 33,000 

Humboldt Bay, CA ................................................................................. 126,000 

Lake St. Clair, MI .................................................................................. 655,000 

Total ............................................................................................. 4,900,000

INTEGRATED DEEPWATER SYSTEMS

The Committee recommends $500,000,000 for continued implementation of the integrated deepwater systems (‘‘deepwater’’) program in fiscal year 2003. This is the same as the budget estimate, 

and an increase of $179,810,000 (56.1 percent) above the amount 

provided for fiscal year 2002. Funds are to be distributed as follows:

Activity Quantity Funding 

Aircraft ........................................................................................................................... ............................ $138,200,000 

Maritime patrol aircraft (CASA HC–235) ............................................................. 3 (123,200,000) 

VTOL unmanned aerial vehicle ............................................................................. ............................ (15,000,000) 

Surface Ships ................................................................................................................ ............................ 215,700,000 

National security cutter ........................................................................................ ............................ (137,800,000) 

270 foot cutter upgrade ....................................................................................... 2 (700,000) 

210 foot cutter upgrade ....................................................................................... 4 (1,400,000) 

378 foot cutter upgrade ....................................................................................... 3 (1,400,000) 

110 foot patrol boat upgrade .............................................................................. 11 (74,400,000) 

Logistics ......................................................................................................................... ............................ 16,600,000 

Shore Facilities .............................................................................................................. 8 7,200,000 

System Engineering & Integration ................................................................................ ............................ 47,800,000 

Other Contracts ............................................................................................................. ............................ 43,500,000 

38

Activity Quantity Funding 

Program Management ................................................................................................... ............................ 31,000,000

Total ................................................................................................................. ............................ 500,000,000 

The deepwater prime contract was signed in June 2002. Because 

this program is just beginning its implementation phase, it is imperative for the Coast Guard to establish firm requirement, cost, 

and schedule baselines as well as routine performance monitoring 

and measurement systems. The Committee is aware that the Coast 

Guard intends to monitor the status of deepwater through the presentation of quarterly ‘‘quad charts’’, which will provide an assessment in four key areas: trends by key indicators; cost; schedule; 

and significant issues or upcoming events. The Committee directs 

the Coast Guard to provide this information to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as it is released. In addition, the 

Committee directs the Coast Guard to provide a quarterly summary of the cost and schedule status of major contracts and subcontracts, including a summary of task and delivery order changes, 

engineering change proposals submitted, and requests for equitable 

adjustment by the contractors. The Committee strongly encourages 

the Coast Guard to fully utilize the services of the Defense Contract Audit Agency in conducting contract audit and evaluation 

services in support of the program management team. 

Reprogramming guidelines.—Because of the size and scope of 

this program, the Committee believes the existing AC&I reprogramming guidelines require clarification to ensure adequate 

Congressional oversight and control. With certain exceptions, the 

current guidelines allow funding shifts of 15 percent or less among 

projects without Congressional notification or approval. Applied to 

the current deepwater budget, this could be construed to allow the 

movement of over $32,000,000 to new activities without any Congressional oversight. The Committee therefore directs the Coast 

Guard to proceed only through the Congressional notification reprogramming process with any budget changes exceeding 10 percent of the base amount appropriated for programs, projects, and 

activities (PPAs), as defined by line items shown in the distribution 

of funds table shown in this section. Any changes in the number 

or type of deliverable assets (e.g., fixed-wing or rotary-wing aircraft, ships, or boats) not contemplated in the budget justifications 

are subject to reprogramming approval. 

Requirement and asset changes.—The Committee is aware that 

the Coast Guard has tasked the prime contractor to study changes 

in deepwater requirements and assets. The Committee is disturbed 

to hear that the service is contemplating major asset changes only 

a few months after contract signing. The Committee’s recommendation of funding is based upon the justification of assets presented 

to the Committee at this point in time. Should the Coast Guard decide to pursue other assets, the Committee directs the service to do 

so only through the formal reprogramming process and only after 

adequate justification to the Appropriations Committees. 

Affordability.—Last year, the appropriations conferees agreed to 

provide funding for the first year of the prime contract only after 

the Director, Office of Management and Budget and the Secretary 

of Transportation jointly certified that the program was fully fundVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
39

ed in Presidential budget assumptions for the first five years of the 

contract. Although that certification was made, the Committee is 

concerned that the program may still be underfunded. The Committee’s analysis indicates that this program is underfunded by at 

least $210,000,000 over the next five years. The Committee encourages the department to work with the Office of Management and 

Budget to clarify and address this shortfall in development of outyear budgets for the deepwater program. The longer this program 

proceeds with a gap between contract funding and projected budgets, the more difficult it will be for the program to meet its cost 

and schedule targets. 

Compliance with the Buy American Act.—The Committee has included a provision (sec. 345) clarifying that the Integrated Deepwater Systems procurement program is subject to the terms and 

conditions of the Buy American Act. The Committee directs the 

Coast Guard to ensure that in complying with such Act, U.S. manufacturers of the major components of Deepwater ships (including 

diesel engines, radars, and propulsors) are given every opportunity 

to fully compete in such procurement. 

PERSONNEL AND RELATED SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $65,000,000, which includes all requested funding except removal of accrual costs, which are explained in an earlier section of this report, and a reduction of 

$200,000 in core acquisition costs. Total funding for this budget activity is approximately the same as enacted for fiscal year 2002. 

Quarterly acquisition reports.—The Committee continues to receive quarterly acquisition reports from the Coast Guard, which describe the cost, schedule, and contractual status of major acquisition projects. The Committee believes these reports have not provided timely notice of major contractual or technical issues, such as 

those which led to termination of the marine information system 

for law enforcement (MISLE) contract in 1999, and those leading 

to cost growth in the C–130J acquisition and Alex Haley conversion 

projects. The Committee directs the Coast Guard to work with the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, in consultation 

with the Office of Inspector General, to develop an improved format 

for these reports during fiscal year 2003. 

BILL LANGUAGE

Capital investment plan.—The bill maintains the requirement for 

the Coast Guard to submit a five-year capital investment plan with 

initial submission of the President’s budget request. This Congressional requirement was first established in fiscal year 2002. 

Disposal of real property.—The bill maintains the provision enacted in fiscal year 2002 crediting to this appropriation proceeds 

from the sale or lease of the Coast Guard’s surplus real property, 

and providing that such receipts are available for obligation in fiscal year 2003 only for the national distress and response system 

(ND&RS) modernization project. 

40

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ..................................................... $16,927,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................... 17,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................... 17,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .............................................. +73,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............................................ ................................

This appropriation assists in bringing Coast Guard facilities into 

compliance with applicable federal, state and environmental regulations; conducting facilities response plans; developing pollution 

and hazardous waste minimization strategies; conducting environmental assessments; and conducting necessary program support. 

These funds permit the continuation of a service-wide program to 

correct environmental problems, such as major improvements of 

storage tanks containing petroleum and regulated substances. The 

program focuses mainly on Coast Guard facilities, but also includes 

third party sites where Coast Guard activities have contributed to 

environmental problems. 

The recommended funding level of $17,000,000 is the same as 

the budget estimate and $73,000 (less than one percent) above the 

fiscal year 2002 enacted level. 

ALTERATION OF BRIDGES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ..................................................... $15,466,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................... ................................

Recommended in the bill ............................................................... 17,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .............................................. +1,534,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............................................ +17,000,000

The bill includes funding for alteration of bridges deemed a hazard to marine navigation pursuant to the Truman-Hobbs Act. The 

Committee does not agree with the approach of the administration 

that obstructive highway bridges and combination rail/highway 

bridges should be funded out of the Federal Highway Administration’s discretionary bridge account, and notes that this proposal 

was not included in the TEA–21 conference report. The purpose of 

altering these bridges is to improve the safety of marine navigation 

under the bridge, not to improve surface transportation on the 

bridge itself. Since in some cases, there are unsafe conditions on 

the waterway beneath a bridge which has an adequate surface or 

structural condition, Federal-aid highways funding is not appropriate to address the purpose of the Truman-Hobbs program. 

The Committee recommends $17,000,000 for five bridges. The 

Committee directs that, of the funds provided, $3,500,000 shall be 

allocated to the Sidney Lanier highway bridge in Brunswick, Georgia; $8,000,000 shall be allocated to the Fourteen Mile Bridge over 

the Mobile River in Mobile, Alabama; $1,000,000 shall be allocated 

to the Galveston Causeway Bridge in Texas; $2,000,000 shall be allocated to the Chelsea Street Bridge in Boston, Massachusetts; and 

$2,500,000 shall be allocated to the Florida Avenue railroad/highway combination bridge in New Orleans, Louisiana. 

Millennium port.—The Committee supports the Millennium Port 

Commission’s progress on the working plan recently completed, and 

encourages the commission to continue working with the Port of 

New Orleans, Lafourche Parish, Plaquemines Parish, and all other 

41

South Louisiana port entities to expeditiously develop the millennium port in Louisiana.

RETIRED PAY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ..................................................... $876,346,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................... 889,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................... 889,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .............................................. +12,654,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............................................ ................................

This appropriation provides for the retired pay of military personnel of the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve, including 

career status bonuses for active duty personnel. Also included are 

payments to members of the former Lighthouse Service and beneficiaries pursuant to the retired serviceman’s family protection plan 

and survivor benefit plan, as well as payments for medical care of 

retired personnel and their dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act. 

The bill provides $889,000,000, the same as the budget estimate and $12,654,000 (1.4 percent) above the fiscal year 2002 enacted 

level. This is scored as a mandatory appropriation in the Congressional budget process. 

RESERVE TRAINING

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ..................................................... $83,194,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................... 86,522,000 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................... 86,522,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .............................................. +3,328,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............................................ ................................

This appropriation provides for the training of qualified individuals who are available for active duty in time of war or national 

emergency or to augment regular Coast Guard forces in the performance of peacetime missions. Program activities fall into the following categories: 

Initial training.—The direct costs of initial training for three categories of non-prior service trainees. 

Continued training.—The training of officer and enlisted personnel. 

Operation and maintenance of training facilities.—The day-to-day 

operation and maintenance of reserve training facilities. 

Administration.—All administrative costs of the reserve forces 

program. The bill includes $86,522,000 for reserve training, which is the same as the budget estimate and $3,328,000 (4 percent) above the 

fiscal year 2002 level. This is expected to support a Selected Reserve level of 9,000, which is 800 (9.8 percent) above the level estimated for fiscal year 2002. 

Given the level of support provided by reservists not only in 

homeland security and national security missions, but also in support of routine duties, the Committee continues to strongly support 

the Coast Guard Reserve. The reserves have proven to be a force 

multiplier within the Coast Guard, augmenting the efficient delivery of Coast Guard service to the public. 

Reservist contribution to homeland security.—The Committee 

notes the strong contribution of the Coast Guard Reserves to our 

42

nation’s preparedness immediately following last year’s terrorist attacks. Within 48 hours of the attacks, 1,571 reservists were called 

up, and within thirty days, almost 2,800 were in uniform. Among 

other duties, these personnel have been performing harbor patrols; 

conducting port security operations around terrorist detention facilities in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; serving as sea marshals; and 

serving as special agents performing law enforcement missions and 

collecting intelligence. In contrast to civilians and active duty personnel, reservists leave their full-time jobs, often on a moment’s notice and sometimes at reduced pay, to serve their country for an 

undefined period of time. The Committee recognizes and appreciates the special sacrifices made by the reserve force and their 

families over the past year. 

Reimbursement to ‘‘Operating expenses’’.—The recommendation 

discontinues the provision, carried for several years, limiting the 

amount of ‘‘Reserve training’’ funds which may be transferred to ‘‘Operating expenses’’. The Committee notes that the active duty 

and reserve elements of the Coast Guard have reached a new 

agreement on the level of appropriate ‘‘Reserve training’’ support 

for the Coast Guard’s active duty operating budget. For this reason, 

the Committee bill eliminates the restrictions. However, the Committee still seeks to ensure that the reserves are not assessed excessive charge-backs to the Coast Guard operating budget, and will 

monitor the situation over the coming year. 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ..................................................... $20,222,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................... 22,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................... 21,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .............................................. +778,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............................................ ................................

The bill includes $21,000,000 for applied scientific research and 

development, test and evaluation projects necessary to maintain 

and expand the technology required for the Coast Guard’s operational and regulatory missions. Of this amount, $3,500,000 is to 

be derived from the oil spill liability trust fund, as requested in the 

budget estimate. This is $778,000 (3.8 percent) above the amount 

provided for fiscal year 2002. 

Wood Composites.—The Coast Guard maintains a large inventory 

of wood pier and other waterfront structures that have significant 

needs for repair and replacement. The Coast Guard and the Federal Highway Administration are participating in a pilot project 

with the University of Maine to test whether wood composites will 

reduce maintenance costs and extend the useful life of waterfront 

structures. Within the funds provided, $1,000,000 is to support the 

continued development, demonstration and evaluation of engineered wood composites at Coast Guard facilities, including Coast 

Guard stations in Jonesport and Southwest Harbor, Maine. 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for the 

safety and development of civil aviation and the evolution of a national system of airports. The Federal Government’s regulatory role 

in civil aviation began with the creation of an Aeronautics Branch 

43

within the Department of Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce Act of 1926. This Act instructed the Secretary of Commerce 

to foster air commerce; designate and establish airways; establish, 

operate, and maintain aids to navigation; arrange for research and 

development to improve such aids; issue airworthiness certificates 

for aircraft and major aircraft components; and investigate civil 

aviation accidents. In the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, these activities were subsumed into a new, independent agency named the 

Civil Aeronautics Authority. After further administrative reorganizations, Congress streamlined regulatory oversight in 1957 with 

the creation of two separate agencies, the Federal Aviation Agency 

and the Civil Aeronautics Board. When the Department of Transportation began its operations on April 1, 1967, the Federal Aviation Agency was renamed the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) and became one of several modal administrations within the 

department. The Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out 

with enactment of the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and ceased 

to exist at the end of 1984. FAA’s mission expanded in 1995 with 

the transfer of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation from 

the Office of the Secretary, and decreased in December 2001 with 

the transfer of civil aviation security activities to the new Transportation Security Administration. 

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2003 PROGRAM

The recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal year 2003 

totals $13,599,225,000, including a $3,400,000,000 limitation on the 

use of contract authority. This is $87,445,000 (less than one percent) above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and $17,000,000 (less 

than one percent) above the President’s request. This bill complies 

with the guaranteed funding levels of Public Law 106–181. 

Most of the activities of the FAA will be funded with direct appropriations in fiscal year 2003. The grants-in-aid for airports program, however, will be financed under contract authority with the 

program level established by a limitation on obligations contained 

in the accompanying bill. The bill assumes continuation of the aviation ticket tax and other related aviation excise taxes throughout 

fiscal year 2003 and assumes no new user fees. 

The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2002 program levels, the fiscal year 2003 program requests, and the Committee’s 

recommendations:

Program 

Fiscal year—

2002 enacted 2003 estimate 2003 recommended 

Operations ................................................................................. $7,119,000,000 $7,077,203,000 $7,060,203,000 

Facilities and equipment .......................................................... 3,007,500,000 2,981,022,000 2,981,022,000 

Research, engineering and development ................................. 245,000,000 124,000,000 138,000,000 

Grants-in-aid for airports (AIP) 1 ............................................. 3,173,280,000 3,400,000,000 3,400,000,000 

Small community air service 2 ................................................. .............................. .............................. 20,000,000

Total ............................................................................. 13,511,780,000 13,582,225,000 13,599,225,000 

1 Limitation on obligations from contract authority. 

2 $20,000,000 provided in fiscal year 2002 under ‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’. 

44

OPERATIONS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 1 ................................................... $7,119,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................... 7,077,203,000 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................... 7,060,203,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .............................................. ¥58,797,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............................................ ¥17,000,000

1 Includes $200,000,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations for civil aviation security activities and 

$42,000,000 in other supplemental emergency appropriations. 

This appropriation provides funds for the operation, maintenance, communications, and logistical support of the air traffic control and air navigation systems. It also covers administrative and 

managerial costs for the FAA’s regulatory, international, medical, 

engineering and development programs as well as policy oversight 

and overall management functions. 

The operations appropriation includes the following major activities: (1) operation on a 24-hour daily basis of a national air traffic 

system; (2) establishment and maintenance of a national system of 

aids to navigation; (3) establishment and surveillance of civil air 

regulations to assure safety in aviation; (4) development of standards, rules and regulations governing the physical fitness of airmen 

as well as the administration of an aviation medical research program; (5) administration of the acquisition, research and development programs; (6) headquarters, administration and other staff offices; and (7) development, printing, and distribution of aeronautical charts used by the flying public. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $7,060,203,000 for FAA operations, 

a decrease of $58,797,000 below the level provided for fiscal year 

2002 and $17,000,000 (less than one percent) below the President’s 

budget request. When funds for civil aviation security activities are 

excluded from the calculation, the bill provides an increase of 

$282,200,000 (4.1 percent) over fiscal year 2002. Civil aviation security activities were funded under FAA in fiscal year 2002 but 

were transferred to the Transportation Security Administration in 

the Aviation and Transportation Security Act. 

A breakdown of the fiscal year 2002 enacted level, the fiscal year 

2003 budget estimate, and the Committee recommendation by 

budget activity is as follows:

Fiscal year 2002 enacted 1Fiscal year 2003 estimate 2Committee

recommended 

Air traffic services .................................................................... $5,446,872,000 $5,697,537,000 $5,741,309,000 

Aviation regulation and certification ........................................ 767,649,000 833,967,000 826,020,000 

Civil aviation security ............................................................... 149,605,000 .............................. ¥60,000 

Research and acquisitions ....................................................... 195,559,000 207,600,000 207,600,000 

Commercial space transportation ............................................ 12,416,000 12,325,000 12,325,000 

Regions and center operations ................................................. 85,735,000 82,192,000 83,392,000

Human resources ...................................................................... 69,282,000 80,260,000 65,808,000 

Financial services ..................................................................... 50,178,000 48,782,000 46,782,000 

Staff offices .............................................................................. 108,704,000 84,890,000 81,840,000 

Information services ................................................................. .............................. 29,650,000 29,650,000

Accountwide adjustments ......................................................... .............................. .............................. ¥34,463,000

45

Fiscal year 2002

enacted 1

Fiscal year 2003

estimate 2

Committee

recommended 

Total .......................................................................................... 6,886,000,000 7,077,203,000 7,060,203,000

1 Excludes TASC reductions of $2,820,000 and supplemental appropriations totaling $243,000,000. 

2 Excludes CSRS/FEHBP accruals. 

USER FEES

The bill assumes the collection of no additional user fees in fiscal 

year 2003 that were not Congressionally authorized for collection 

during fiscal year 2002. The FAA estimates that $30,000,000 in 

overflight user fees will be collected during fiscal year 2003. However, these funds will not be available to augment the FAA’s budget, since under current law, these receipts must be transferred to 

the Office of the Secretary for the Essential Air Service and Rural 

Airports program. As required by statute, should the FAA experience a shortfall in overflight fee collections, the agency is required 

to transfer its own budgetary resources to maintain a $50,000,000 

level for the EAS program during fiscal year 2003. Any shortfall 

should be funded from the ‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ appropriation. 

TRUST FUND SHARE OF FAA BUDGET

The bill derives $3,585,068,000 of the total appropriation from 

the airport and airway trust fund, consistent with current law and 

the budget estimate. The balance of the appropriation will be 

drawn from the general fund of the Treasury. Under these provisions, only 50.8 percent of the FAA’s operating costs will be borne 

by air travelers and industries using those services. The remaining 

49.2 percent will be borne by the general taxpayer, regardless of 

whether they directly utilize FAA services. 

State of the airport and airway trust fund.—The Committee is 

greatly concerned over the deteriorating financial status of the airport and airway trust fund, and the implications this has for future 

FAA budgets. One year ago, FAA projected revenues to the trust 

fund of approximately $85 billion over the fiscal year 2002—2007 

time period. After the terrorist attacks of last year and the loss of 

significant high-end business fares, the current projection of revenues over that time period is $67.9 billion. This represents a loss 

of $17.1 billion, or twenty percent, to the trust fund. FAA estimates 

that a no-growth budget over this time period would cost approximately $87 billion, which is now substantially above the revenue 

estimates. While the general fund could be tapped to address the 

shortfall, as the Inspector General testified this year, ‘‘these additional requirements come at a time when the general fund is already supporting vastly expanded fiscal needs throughout the Federal Government and underscore the urgency for FAA to begin operating more cost-effectively’’. The Committee notes that DOT has 

the highest salary costs of any cabinet-level department, and these 

costs are largely driven by FAA. For example, average staff year 

costs at the agency in fiscal year 2003 are estimated at $117,630. 

In addition, the Congress and FAA have relatively little budget 

flexibility under current law, which requires the appropriations 

committees to set aside certain funding levels for FAA’s capital and 

grant programs. Because of this, funding increases for FAA’s operating budget must necessarily come at the expense of other critical 

46

transportation programs such as the Coast Guard and Transportation Security Administration, at a time when revenues designed 

to support those activities are lower than previously estimated. 

When trust fund revenues were higher than appropriations for 

capital programs, a consensus emerged within the Congress to 

guarantee the spending of trust fund revenues, and programs were 

significantly expanded. Now the reverse has occurred—trust fund 

revenues are down—and the agency must look inward to address 

new budget realities. While the Committee will be flexible in evaluating the need for greater general fund contributions to FAA’s operating budget, the Committee has long held that the large majority 

of those costs should be borne by the traveling public which utilize 

FAA’s services directly. Over the next year, FAA is strongly encouraged to review its operating cost structure and aggressively seek 

productivity and efficiency gains wherever possible. In addition, the 

Committee encourages the legislative committees of the Congress 

to be mindful of the deteriorated status of the trust fund, and provide greater flexibility to the agency and the appropriations committees in allocating future funds to the FAA. 

FEDERAL EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ACT

The Committee is concerned that FAA’s workers’ compensation 

caseload and costs, authorized under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, continue to rise. FAA’s cost for workers compensa- tion is estimated at $86,365,000 in fiscal year 2003, to address 

3,706 cases. The average payment for FAA employees is estimated 

at $45,767, which is 67 percent above the government-wide average. Because of these high costs, the Committee encourages the department and FAA to review the workers compensation program to 

determine whether better management could reduce the number of 

cases and overall costs. 

The Committee’s specific recommendations by budget activity are 

discussed below. 

AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES

The recommendation includes $5,741,309,000 for air traffic services, an increase of $294,437,000 (5.4 percent) above the fiscal year 

2002 enacted level and $43,772,000 above the budget estimate. Adjustments to the budget estimate are discussed below. 

Spring/summer 2003.—The Committee recommends half the 

proposed increase of $6,512,000 for initiatives aimed at reducing 

air travel delays in the spring and summer of 2003. After massive 

delays in the year 2000, FAA began special activities, including 

training and weather prediction, to mitigate these problems. In fiscal year 2002, this activity was funded at $27,212,000. The Committee believes that, given the slowdown in air travel, a lesser rate 

of increase is justified next year. 

Operational evolution plan.—The recommendation deletes 

$11,116,000 of proposed activities under this heading, including 

$6,107,000 requested to reduce the backlog of building maintenance 

needs and meet facility requirements of the Occupational Health 

and Safety Administration. These requirements have little to do 

with FAA’s operational evolution plan, and if truly needed, should 

be accomplished through a similar program funded under ‘‘Facilities and equipment’’, for which adequate funds are provided in this 

47

bill. The bill also deletes funds for satellite navigation

(¥$3,191,000), air traffic control procedural modeling 

(¥$1,500,000), and GPS direction finding (¥$318,000) due to lack 

of justification. 

National airspace redesign.—The bill includes $40,343,000 for 

national airspace redesign, an increase of $19,843,000 (96.8 percent) above the level provided for fiscal year 2002 and $5,357,000 

below the budget estimate. Of the funds provided, $8,500,000 is 

solely for airspace redesign activities in the New York/New Jersey 

metropolitan area. 

The Committee directs FAA to submit quarterly reports on the 

New Jersey/New York airspace redesign effort, including funds expended to date; progress to date; and the schedule for completing 

and implementing the project. The report should include details on 

all planned components and elements of the redesign project, including details on any ocean routing modeling that has been conducted. The following table compares the fiscal year 2002 enacted 

level to the budget estimate and the Committee recommendation:

Activity FY 2002 enacted Budget estimate Committee recommended 

FAA headquarters ................................................................ $2,109,316 $9,525,798 6,000,000 

Alaska region ...................................................................... 76,178 595,200 595,200 

Central region ..................................................................... 531,858 3,212,346 3,212,346 

Eastern region ..................................................................... 12,500,000 8,500,000 8,500,000 

Great Lakes region .............................................................. 1,421,858 5,930,423 5,930,423 

New England region ............................................................ 131,358 1,594,619 1,594,619 

Northwest mountain region ................................................ 442,858 1,616,650 1,616,650 

Southern region ................................................................... 1,332,858 5,069,034 5,069,034 

Southwest region ................................................................ 531,858 866,500 866,500 

Western Pacific region ........................................................ 1,421,858 8,846,501 7,015,299

Total ....................................................................... 20,500,000 45,757,071 40,343,000 

National park air tour management plans.— Public Law 106–181 

requires an air tour operator to submit a management plan ‘‘whenever a person applies for authority to operate a commercial air tour 

operation over the park’’. In fiscal year 2002, Congress provided 

$8,200,000 for FAA to begin the review and approval of air tour 

management plans for the 54 parks where such services are currently provided. The same amount is included in the fiscal year 

2003 President’s budget. However, in hearings this year, the FAA 

indicated that no applications had been submitted due to OMB’s 

continuing review of the proposed regulation, and provisions of the 

law requiring submission of applications within 90 days of issuance 

of the final rule. Given these delays, it is unlikely that FAA will 

be able to meet its schedule to have all management plans approved by the end of fiscal year 2003. Due to these delays, the 

Committee provides one-half the requested amount for this activity. 

Training.—The Committee is concerned over the excessive rate of 

increase proposed for air traffic training. The President’s budget re- quested $60,405,000 for this training in fiscal year 2003, an increase of $15,531,000 (34.6 percent) over the fiscal year 2002 level. 

This is three times the rate of increase experienced for flight standards training, and represents growth of almost 40 percent in the 

cost per staff year in only two years. The Committee believes these 

training costs are overstated, and notes that FAA has reproVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
48

grammed training funds several times over the past few years 

when funds were desired for other activities. Furthermore, the 

President’s budget proposes an unexplained reduction of $85,500,000 and 300 staff years in air traffic, which make these 

training increases highly questionable. The Committee recommends $50,000,000, an increase of $5,126,000 (11.4 percent)— the same rate of increase approved for flight standards. 

Air traffic controller proficiency and developmental training.— The Committee continues to note the importance of controller 

training conducted under the existing air traffic instructional services (ATIS) contract. The FAA’s budget request for fiscal year 2003 included $31,100,000 for these services. In past years, the agency 

has reprogrammed funds from this account, to the detriment of 

controller training. Within the $50,000,000 approved for controller 

training, the Committee directs FAA to utilize the planned amount 

of $31,100,000 under the ATIS contract. This is designated as an 

item of special Congressional interest. Any proposed adjustments 

from the amount recommended shall be subject to the Congressional reprogramming process. 

NAS handoff.—Once again this year, the FAA has proposed an 

accounting gimmick to make its operating budget appear smaller, 

a gimmick which the Committee rejected last year and encouraged 

the agency not to repeat. FAA’s longstanding policy has been to include funds for maintenance of new systems in the operating budget, except for the first year after commissioning. During the first 

year, when start-up problems are typical, it is appropriate for funds 

to be included in the capital budget. Last year, however, the agency 

announced a plan to ‘‘stretch’’ to two years the length of time maintenance expenses would be paid from the capital budget. In this 

way, a portion of the agency’s routine operating expenses can be 

disguised as a capital expense, crowding out legitimate capital expenses and covering up the agency’s true operating costs. The Committee is disappointed that the Administration has repeated this 

proposal in fiscal year 2003, especially at a time when the public 

is demanding more accurate accounting and fewer gimmicks of private sector accounting. The Committee believes it is difficult for the 

Federal Government to show leadership in the issue of corporate 

accounting unless its own books are in order. As a result, the Committee recommendation transfers $70,000,000 of NAS handoff 

maintenance funds from ‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ to this appropriation to more properly reflect the work being performed. If the 

agency persists in making this flawed recommendation next year, 

the Committee will consider this performance in its review of the 

agency’s request for financial management personnel. 

Air traffic control supervisory levels.—In fiscal year 2002, Congress directed FAA to restore supervisory air traffic control positions proposed for elimination in the budget, and to halt further expansion of the controller-in-charge concept. Since the expansion 

began in February 2000, 250 operational supervisors have been 

eliminated, raising the supervisory ratio in this workforce from 7.4/

1 to 9.1/1. The agency has clearly met its obligation to ‘‘move toward’’ a ratio of 10/1. Because of continuing concerns about the controller-in-charge program, the Committee retains the policy in effect for fiscal year 2002, and directs FAA not to reduce the number 

of operational supervisor positions below the level at the time the 

49

Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Act, 2002 was 

enacted. FAA advises the Committee that the figure on board at 

that time was 1,700. 

Staffing reduction.—The President’s budget includes a base reduction of $85,000,000 and 300 staffyears which is not adequately 

explained in the justifications. Although a decision was to have 

been made in June 2002 on the nature of this proposal, to date the 

Committee has received no information explaining how this large 

reduction will be accommodated without harm to essential air traffic services. The budget justifications indicate that the reduction 

would be taken by refusing to fill vacant positions except for those 

represented by the National Air Traffic Controllers Association 

(NATCA) or Professional Airways Service Specialists (PASS) bargaining units. By the Committee’s estimate, approximately 25,500 

such positions are represented by these two unions. The Committee 

is unclear how such a large reduction can be accommodated among 

the balance of air traffic positions, based on attrition assumptions 

accompanying the fiscal year 2003 budget, without harm to air 

traffic services around the country. Accordingly, the Committee directs FAA to submit, not later than December 1, 2002, a detailed 

plan showing how this reduction will be allocated between the various air traffic offices, with a description of the impact on air traffic 

services at those locations. 

Office of the chief operating officer.—Although the Aviation and 

Investment Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR–21) established 

the position of air traffic services chief operating officer, the agency 

has never filled this position and no funds are specifically identified 

in the budget request for the position or its supporting office. The 

Committee directs that, prior to the filling of any position in such 

office other than the chief operating officer, or the filling or detailing of any position to support the chief operating officer, the FAA 

request such funding through the normal reprogramming process. 

Contract tower cost-sharing.—The bill includes $6,000,000 to continue the contract tower cost-sharing program. The Committee continues to believe this is a valuable program which provides safety 

benefits to small communities. 

MARC.—The bill includes $2,000,000 to continue operating support for the Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium (MARC) in 

Minnesota. This program has been funded for many years. 

Newark delay reduction initiatives.—The Committee directs FAA 

to provide quarterly reports to the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations on the status of delay reduction initiatives in 

Newark, New Jersey. A similar requirement was in place for fiscal 

year 2000. 

Contract tower cost-sharing.—The bill includes $6,000,000 to continue the contract tower cost-sharing program. As of July 1, 2002, 

the following airports were financed through this important program:

New Century Air Center, KS 

Manhattan, KS 

Garden City, KS 

Central Nebraska/Grand Island, NE 

Bolton Field, OH 

McKellar-Sipes Regional, TN 

Hickory Regional, NC 

Concord, NC 

Grand Strand/Myrtle Beach, SC 

Springdale Municipal, AR 

South Lake Tahoe, CA 

Williamsport/Lycoming County, PA 

Chicago Meigs Field, IL 

Lebanon Municipal, NH 

Fayetteville, AR 

Laughlin/Bullhead City, AZ 

50

Shreveport Downtown, LA 

Muncie, IN 

Columbus, IN 

Bloomington, IN 

Henderson, NV 

Jefferson City, MO 

Latrobe, PA 

Victorville, CA 

Stillwater, OK 

King Salmon, AK 

Oneida County, NY 

Walla Walla Regional, WA 

Macon, GA 

Kingston, NC 

Elko, NV

Real-time display of air traffic and flight information.—Within 

the funds provided for air traffic services, the recommendation includes $240,000 for air traffic monitor software for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. This technology is currently used 

in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Louisville, and provides near 

real-time display of air traffic and flight information in and around 

major airports, which can be accessed via the internet. With this 

software, aviation authorities as well as private citizens can monitor flights to ensure they are following their scheduled flight paths 

as well as FAA flight regulations and restrictions. 

AVIATION REGULATION AND CERTIFICATION

The Committee recommends $826,174,000 for aviation regulation 

and certification, a reduction of $7,947,000 below the budget estimate. Reductions to the budget estimate are as follows: 

Safer skies.—The bill includes $10,000,000 for this activity, an 

increase of $4,525,000 (82.6 percent) above the funding provided for 

fiscal year 2002, but $6,887,000 below the budget estimate. While 

the Committee supports this initiative, a slower rate of growth is 

justified to fund other priorities. The Committee encourages FAA 

to allocate the reduction equally against commercial aviation and 

general aviation activities. 

International harmonization staff.—The recommendation does 

not include the $250,000 requested for five additional staff to conduct international harmonization activities. More than three years 

ago, the Committee directed FAA to submit a five year plan to improve international aviation safety. Although this was directed to 

be submitted not later than February 15, 2000, the report has still 

not been received. Until the Committee receives and reviews this 

plan, updated to current resources and world conditions, it is unreasonable to expect additional funds for staffing in this area. 

Drug/alcohol compliance testing.—The Committee recommendation does not include the proposed increase of $810,000 and 20 positions for the agency drug and alcohol testing program. Last year, 

Congress directed FAA to conduct a review investigating the validity of the current drug testing procedures, after Inspector General 

and other reports raised concerns over the current practices. This 

review will not be completed until fiscal year 2003. The Committee 

does not believe additional resources are warranted until evidence 

is presented that these concerns are resolved. Furthermore, the 

agency’s justification for the additional funding makes note of deficiencies found in an FAA task force report dated January 1999. 

The Committee has reviewed the task force report, and concludes 

that these deficiencies were largely procedural, and do not require 

additional funding. For example, the task force found several cases 

where unannounced drug testing was compromised when employees were called at home by managers or union representatives the 

day of the test and advised that testers would be in the facility that 

51

day. It also found that, because tests were almost always conducted 

during the day, the night shifts came to be regarded as ‘‘safe havens’’—a procedure undermining the notion of random testing. The 

task force also found that disciplinary measures for those employees caught using drugs or alcohol was inconsistent or nonexistent. 

The Committee believes procedural problems such as these need to 

be resolved immediately, before additional funds can be justified. 

Funding in the bill is the same as the fiscal year 2002 enacted 

level. 

Digital imaging and workflow system.—The Committee is aware 

that FAA is implementing a new pilot medical certification procedure called the aeromedical digital imaging and workflow system 

(DIWS). DIWS is intended to expedite the processing of medical 

certificates that require direct authorization from specific FAA personnel. In light of the immediate benefits that would be realized by 

both pilots and the FAA, the Committee encourages the agency to 

complete implementation of DIWS no later than fiscal year 2004. 

Graphics in notice to airman publications.—The Committee believes there is potential to improve safety and efficiency by expanding the use of graphics in notice to airman (NOTAM) publications, 

including temporary flight restrictions. The Committee directs FAA 

to expand the use of graphics in these publications wherever feasible during fiscal year 2003. 

CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY

The Committee deletes the $6,064,000 proposed for accrual benefits of former FAA employees now employed by the Transportation 

Security Administration as part of the Committee-wide initiative to 

deny the accrual proposal. In addition, the bill deletes the $60,000 

assumed in the budget estimate for the Aviation Security Advisory 

Committee. Such expenses, if needed, should now be borne by the 

Transportation Security Administration. 

RESEARCH AND ACQUISITIONS

The Committee recommends $207,600,000 for research and acquisitions, the same as the budget estimate. 

COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

The Committee recommends $12,325,000 for commercial space 

transportation, the same as the budget estimate. 

REGIONS AND CENTER OPERATIONS

The Committee recommends $83,392,000 for regions and center operations, an increase of $1,200,000 above the budget estimate. 

The recommendation restores a proposed reduction in activities 

such as runway safety oversight, environmental reviews, and expedited reviews of proposed new runways at airports. The Committee 

believes these are high priority activities that should not be reduced. 

HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

The Committee recommends $65,808,000 for human resource 

management, a reduction of $14,452,000 below the budget estimate. Adjustments to the budget estimate are as follows: 

52

Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) surcharge for administrative costs.—As explained in an earlier section of this report, the Committee recommendation deletes funds related to an 

administrative surcharge for the Department of Labor’s costs to administer activities authorized under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (commonly known as worker’s compensation). This results in a reduction of $4,353,000 below the budget estimate. 

Human resource information system.—The Committee recommendation defers further implementation of the human resource 

information system due to weak justification and higher budgetary 

priorities. This results in a reduction of $4,600,000 below the budget estimate. 

Strategic alliances.—The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for 

strategic alliances, a reduction of $5,499,000 below the budget estimate. The following table compares the budget estimate to the 

Committee recommendation for various components of the strategic 

alliances budget activity:

Activity Budget estimate Committee

recommended 

Overall effectiveness of HRM program ................................................................... $8,697,000 $4,000,000 

Employee assistance program ................................................................................. 1,550,000 1,550,000

Labor relations ......................................................................................................... 4,242,000 4,000,000 

Organizational development and performance improvement ................................. 1,010,000 450,000

Total ........................................................................................................... 15,499,000 10,000,000 

Personnel reform.—The Committee remains concerned that personnel reform has not achieved many of its original objectives. For 

example, the agency was expected to replace the general schedule 

personnel and compensation system with one that would be centered on merit reviews rather than automatic increases based on 

cost of living adjustments or time in grade. It was hoped that this 

would allow the FAA to reward the highest performers in the agency and provide incentives for improvement among weak performers. 

Unfortunately, while the agency still has the flexibility to design 

such a system, the large majority of pay increases remain automatic in nature. For example, funds are still included for the government-wide pay increase, although the agency has the flexibility 

to base such awards on merit. More than 12,000 agency employees 

still receive automatic within grade increases, even after the agency has tried to migrate to a performance-based compensation system. The Committee encourages FAA to review opportunities to reduce the use of automatic pay raises in the hopes of providing a 

stronger linkage between pay and performance within the agency. 

In addition, the Committee directs the Office of Inspector General 

to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of FAA’s implementation of 

personnel reform, including the extent to which the agency has 

substituted merit-based pay raises for automatic increases, improved the matching of pay to performance, and met the other 

goals of personnel reform. 

FINANCIAL SERVICES

The Committee recommends $46,782,000 for the office of financial services, a reduction of $2,000,000 below the budget estimate. 

The Committee is disturbed to hear that the FAA continues to have 

53

problems in contracts management, and fails to adequately utilize 

the services of the Defense Contract Audit Agency to help the agency locate contract savings and excessive contractor claims. The 

Committee believes that greater use of DCAA will lead to savings 

at the agency and strongly encourages the FAA, once again, to increase the number of pre- and post-award contract audits. The recommendation assumes savings from this increased volume of audits. 

STAFF OFFICES

The Committee recommends $81,840,000 for staff offices, a reduction of $3,050,000 below the budget estimate. The Committee’s 

review of staffing in the office of the administrator and deputy administrator and the office of public affairs indicate several positions 

which can be eliminated. The FAA should also look carefully at executive positions detailed to other federal agencies, to determine 

whether it would be appropriate for the receiving agency to provide 

reimbursement for those positions. The recommendation includes a 

reduction of $400,000 in these areas. Additional adjustments are as 

follows: 

Policy/planning office.—The recommendation includes a reduction of $1,750,000 in this office, which freezes the filling of 26 positions which were vacant at the time of this year’s budget hearing. 

The Committee notes that the staffing of this office includes 30 

economists, of which 6 are economists studying the aviation industry. The Committee believes that, given budget constraints, funds 

to fill these and other vacant policy and planning positions can be 

temporarily deferred. 

Office of system safety staffing.—The recommendation includes a 

reduction of $500,000 in staffing costs for the office of system safety. 

International aviation offices.—The recommendation includes an 

additional $500,000 for the operational costs of FAA’s overseas offices. The Committee continues to support the work of these offices 

in promoting U.S. aviation safety interests overseas. Of these 

funds, $250,000 shall be allocated to FAA’s European office in 

Brussels, Belgium and $250,000 shall be allocated to the Asia-Pacific office in Singapore. 

OFFICE OF INFORMATION SERVICES/CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

The recommendation includes $29,650,000 for the office of information services, the same as the budget estimate. This is a new 

budget activity for fiscal year 2003. Previously, funds for this office 

were included under ‘‘Staff offices’’. 

ACCOUNTWIDE ADJUSTMENTS

The recommendation includes a reduction of $34,463,000 in 

accountwide adjustments, as described below: 

Staffing adjustment.—The recommendation includes a reduction 

of $10,000,000 due to slow hiring in fiscal year 2002. The budget 

request assumes the continuation of personnel compensation and 

benefits for a baseline of 43,865 on board staff at the end of fiscal 

year 2002. However, information submitted for this year’s budget 

hearing indicated that the agency was 900 short of meeting this 

54

goal. Given the delays in providing supplemental funding and the 

President’s decision not to release contingent amounts—including 

funds for FAA’s operating budget—the Committee does not believe 

FAA will be able to meet its hiring goals for fiscal year 2002. These 

delays indicate a lower budgetary requirement for fiscal year 2003, 

as costs will not need to be annualized for the full fiscal year. 

Contract maintenance.—The bill includes $134,474,000 for contract maintenance, a reduction of $21,258,000 below the budget estimate. Without adequate justification, the budget estimate included $155,732,000, an increase of 27.6 percent over the fiscal 

year 2002 enacted level. The recommendation includes a 10 percent 

increase in these costs. 

Travel.—For several years, the Committee has been encouraging 

FAA to minimize its travel costs. While initial budgetary estimates 

appear to be responsive to this request, the Committee is concerned 

that end-of-year actual costs are greatly exceeding the initial estimates. For example, last year, the agency’s estimate of travel costs 

for fiscal year 2002 was $121,975,000. However, despite a hiring 

freeze and serious budget shortfalls in fiscal year 2002, the agency 

is now projecting travel expenses of $132,000,000. This comes on 

the heels of an $18,115,000 (17.4 percent) increase in agency travel 

for fiscal year 2001. This performance causes the Committee to 

question the internal controls and monitoring of travel costs within 

the agency. The recommendation includes a reduction of $1,064,000 

in travel costs, to encourage the agency to monitor these costs more 

effectively. 

FAA/DOT library TASC charges.—It is the Committee’s understanding that, despite FAA’s proposal to close the FAA Library due 

to limited usage, the Transportation Administrative Service Center 

has denied this proposal and intends to bill FAA $2,141,000 in fiscal year 2003 for operations of that library and FAA’s share of 

funding for the DOT Library in the Nassif building. The Committee 

believes TASC managers should be more responsive to the proposals of its customers, and should investigate carefully whether, 

in the age of e-government and e-commerce, the DOT Library 

should be downsized or eliminated entirely. The Committee recommendation does not include the $2,141,000 budgeted for these 

activities, and directs FAA not to pay TASC for such charges. 

OST assessments.—Even though the Committee directed two 

years ago that assessments only be charged by the office of the secretary for administrative activities, and not policy initiatives, a review of recent charges indicates the department is still not adhering to this direction. For example, in fiscal year 2000 FAA was 

charged for an open skies conference, an international symposium, 

and the DOT Center for Climate Change. In fiscal year 2002, FAA 

is being charged for an OST delay study ($125,000). These can 

hardly be classified as administrative activities. Last year, the 

Committee directed FAA not to pay such charges in the future, and 

to notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations if 

such proposals are made. However, obviously these improper crosscharges are still occurring. The FAA is directed, once again, not to 

fund policy-related assessments. 

55

BILL LANGUAGE

Manned auxiliary flight service stations.—The Committee bill includes the limitation requested in the President’s budget prohibiting funds from being used to operate a manned auxiliary flight 

service station in the contiguous United States. The FAA budget 

includes no funding to operate such stations during fiscal year 

2003. 

Second career training program.—Once again this year, the Committee bill includes a prohibition on the use of funds for the second 

career training program. This prohibition has been in annual appropriations Acts for many years, and is included in the President’s 

budget request. 

Sunday premium pay.—The bill retains a provision begun in fiscal year 1995 which prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday premium pay except in those cases where the individual actually 

worked on a Sunday. The statute governing Sunday premium pay 

(5 U.S.C. 5546(a)) is very clear: ‘‘An employee who performs work 

during a regularly scheduled 8–hour period of service which is not 

overtime work as defined by section 5542(a) of this title a part of 

which is performed on Sunday is entitled to * * * premium pay at 

a rate equal to 25 percent of his rate of basic pay.’’ Disregarding 

the plain meaning of the statute and previous Comptroller General 

decisions, however, in Armitage v. United States, the Federal Circuit Court held in 1993 that employees need not actually perform 

work on a Sunday to receive premium pay. The FAA was required 

immediately to provide back pay totaling $37,000,000 for time 

scheduled but not actually worked between November 1986 and 

July 1993. Without this provision, the FAA would be liable for significant unfunded liabilities, to be financed by the agency’s annual 

operating budget. This provision is identical to that in effect for fiscal years 1995 through 2002. 

Aeronautical charting and cartography.—The bill maintains the 

provision which prohibits funds in this Act from being used to conduct aeronautical charting and cartography (AC&C) activities 

through the transportation administrative services center (TASC). 

Public Law 106–181 authorizes the transfer of these activities from 

the Department of Commerce to the FAA, a move which the Committee supports. The Committee believes this work should be conducted by the FAA, and not administratively delegated to the 

TASC. 

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 1 ..................................................... $3,007,500,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ..................................................... 2,981,022,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................. 2,981,022,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ ¥33,978,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 .............................................. ..............................

1 Includes rescission of $15,000,000 and emergency supplemental appropriations totaling $108,500,000. 

The Facilities and Equipment (F&E) appropriation is the principal means for modernizing and improving air traffic control and 

airway facilities. The appropriation also finances major capital investments required by other agency programs, experimental reVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
56

search and development facilities, and other improvements to enhance the safety and capacity of the airspace system. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,981,022,000 

for this program, an decrease of $33,978,000 (1.1 percent) below the 

level provided for fiscal year 2002 and the same as the budget estimate. The amount proposed is required and guaranteed by Public 

Law 106–181. The bill provides that of the total amount recommended, not to exceed $2,559,904,000 is available for obligation 

until September 30, 2005, and $421,118,000 (the amount for personnel and related expenses) is available until September 30, 2003. 

These obligation availabilities are consistent with past appropriations Acts and the same as the budget request. 

The following table shows the fiscal year 2003 budget estimate 

and the Committee recommendation for each of the projects funded 

by this appropriation:

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 

(in thousands of dollars) 

Budget

estimate 

Committee

recommended 

Improve Aviation Safety ....................................................................................................... $403,340.0 $484,214.2

Terminal Business Unit .............................................................................................. 141,000.0 151,183.0

Aviation Weather Services Improvements .................................................................. 23,440.0 23,440.0

Low Level Windshear Alert System (LLWAS)—Upgrade ............................................. 1,600.0 1,600.0

Aviation Safety Analysis System (ASAS) .................................................................... 21,700.0 15,000.0

Integrated Flight Quality Assurance (IFQA) ................................................................ 500.0 500.0

Safety Performance Analysis Subsystem (SPAS) ........................................................ 2,100.0 2,100.0

Performance Enhancement Systems (PENS) .............................................................. 2,600.0 2,600.0

Safe Flight 21 ............................................................................................................. 29,800.0 40,000.0

Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping ................................................. 41,100.0 43,100.0

Aircraft Related Equipment Program ......................................................................... 16,000.0 16,000.0

National Aviation Safety Data Analysis Center (NASDAC) ......................................... 2,000.0 2,000.0

Louisville, KY technology demonstration .................................................................... 0.0 10,000.0

Explosive Detection Technology .................................................................................. 121,500.0 176,691.2

Improve Efficiency of the Air Traffic Control System ......................................................... 914,185.5 879,885.3

Terminal Business Unit .............................................................................................. 551,035.5 516,280.3

Aeronautical Data Link (ADL) Applications ................................................................ 33,200.0 33,200.0

Free Flight Phase 2 .................................................................................................... 106,200.0 106,200.0

Air Traffic Management (ATM) ................................................................................... 13,000.0 13,000.0

Free Flight Phase 1 .................................................................................................... 39,900.0 36,600.0

Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) ........................................................... 12,100.0 12,755.0

Next Generation Very High Frequency Air/Ground Communications System 

(NEXCOM) ............................................................................................................... 71,100.0 71,100.0

En Route Automation Program ................................................................................... 71,050.0 71,050.0

Weather and Radar Processor (WARP) ....................................................................... 13,600.0 13,600.0

ATOMS Local Area/Wide Area Network ....................................................................... 1,100.0 1,100.0

NAS Management Automation Program (NASMAP) .................................................... 1,990.0 0.0

New York Integrated Control Complex ........................................................................ 0.0 5,000.0

Increase Capacity of the NAS ............................................................................................. 353,500.0 394,875.0

Navigation and Landing Aids ..................................................................................... 249,800.0 291,175.0

Oceanic Automation System ....................................................................................... 87,400.0 87,400.0

Gulf of Mexico Offshore Program ............................................................................... 2,300.0 2,300.0

Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS) ............................................................. 14,000.0 14,000.0

Imrpove Reliability of the NAS ................................................................................... 443,410.0 434,010.0

Guam Center Radar Approach Control (CERAP)—Relocate ...................................... 5,000.0 5,000.0

Terminal Voice Switch Replacement/Enhanced TVS .................................................. 6,200.0 6,200.0

Airport Cable Loop Systems—Sustained Support ..................................................... 4,000.0 4,000.0

En Route Automation Program ................................................................................... 142,800.0 142,800.0

ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements ................................................. 40,200.0 40,200.0

Air Traffic Management (ATM) ................................................................................... 24,500.0 24,500.0

Critical Telecommunication Support .......................................................................... 1,000.0 1,000.0

57

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued

(in thousands of dollars) 

Budget

estimate 

Committee

recommended 

FAA Telecommunications Infrasturce ......................................................................... 46,600.0 46,600.0

Air/Ground Communications Infrasturce .................................................................... 22,800.0 22,800.0

Voice Recorder Replacement Program (VRRP) ........................................................... 3,300.0 7,000.0

NAS Infrastructure Management System (NIMS) ....................................................... 29,100.0 16,000.0

Flight Service Station (FSS) Modernization ................................................................ 5,700.0 5,700.0

FSAS Operational and Supportability Implementation System (OASIS) ..................... 19,710.0 19,710.0

Weather Message Switching Ctr Replacement (WMSCR) .......................................... 2,000.0 2,000.0

Flight Service Station Switch Modernization .............................................................. 13,200.0 13,200.0

Alaskan NAS Interfacility Communications System (ANICS) ...................................... 2,900.0 2,900.0

Electrical Power Systems—Sustain/Support .............................................................. 50,700.0 50,700.0

NAS Recovery Communications (RCOM) ..................................................................... 9,400.0 9,400.0

Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Modernization ..................................................... 11,700.0 11,700.0

Frequency and Spectrum Engineering ........................................................................ 2,600.0 2,600.0

Improve the Efficiency of Mission Support ......................................................................... 444,019.5 444,919.5

NAS Improvement of System Support Laboratory ...................................................... 2,700.0 2,700.0

Technical Center Facilities ......................................................................................... 12,000.0 12,000.0

Technical Center Building and Plant Support ........................................................... 3,000.0 3,000.0

En Route Communications and Control Facilities Improvements ............................. 1,058.0 1.058.0

DOD/FAA Facilities Transfer ........................................................................................ 1,200.0 1,200.0

Terminal Communications—Improve ......................................................................... 1,249.3 1,249.3

Flight Service Facilities Improvement ........................................................................ 1,223.2 1,223.2

Navigation and Landing Aids—Improve .................................................................... 5,034.0 5,034.0

FAA Buildings and Equipment ................................................................................... 11,000.0 11,000.0

Air Navigational Aids and ATC Facilities (Local Projects) ......................................... 2,100.0 2,100.0

Modernization .............................................................................................................. 2,800.0 2,800.0

Information Technology Integration ............................................................................ 1,600.0 1,600.0

Operational Data Management System (ODMS) ........................................................ 10,300.0 3,000.0

Logistics Support Systems and Facilities (LSSF) ....................................................... 9,300.0 5,000.0

Test Equipment—Maintenance Support for Replacement ........................................ 1,700.0 1,700.0

Facility Security Risk Management ............................................................................ 37,300.0 25,000.0

Information Security ................................................................................................... 13,291.0 13,291.0

Distance Learning ....................................................................................................... 1,300.0 1,300.0

Natioal Airspace System (NAS) Training Facilities .................................................... 2,300.0 2,300.0

System Engineering and Development Support ......................................................... 25,800.0 25,800.0

Program Support Leases ............................................................................................ 38,400.0 38,400.0

Logistics Support Services (LSS) ................................................................................ 7,500.0 7,500.0

Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center—Leases ............................................................ 14,600.0 14,600.0

In-Plant NAS Contract Support Services .................................................................... 2,900.0 2,900.0

Transition Engineering Support .................................................................................. 39,000.0 37,000.0

FAA Corporate Systems Architecture .......................................................................... 1,000.0 1,000.0

Technical Support Services Contract (TSSC) ............................................................. 46,700.0 46,700.0

Resource Tracking Program (RTP) .............................................................................. 3,700.0 3,700.0

Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development ................................................ 81,364.0 81,364.0

Operational Evolution Plan ......................................................................................... 1,000.0 1,000.0

NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental Standards Compliance .............................. 32,600.0 28,400.0

Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Monitoring ....................................................... 8,500.0 8,500.0

Hazardous Materials Management ............................................................................. 20,500.0 20,500.0

Research Aircraft Replacement .................................................................................. 0.0 25,000.0

Personnel, Compensation, Benefits, and Travel ................................................................. 441,118.0 421,118.0

Personnel and Related Expenses ............................................................................... 441,118.0 421,118.0

Accountwide Adjustments .................................................................................................... ¥18,551.0 ¥70,000.0

NAS Handoff—Transfer to Operating Expenses ........................................................ 0.0 ¥70,000.0

CSRS/FEHBP accruals ................................................................................................. ¥18,551.0 0.0

Total ....................................................................................................................... 2,981,022.0 2,981,022.0

This year, the FAA has proposed a new budget structure for this 

appropriation. On the one hand, this proposal allows one to more 

clearly monitor the allocation of resources among important missions of the agency such as safety and system efficiency. However, 

the elimination of categories designed to focus attention on the development status and technical risk of programs raises the possiVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
58

bility that more programs will proceed into the acquisition phase 

when they are not ready to do so. This type of inadequate management control was a significant failure of the agency in past years, 

the legacy of which should not be forgotten by the agency. While 

the Committee has approved the new budgetary structure, the 

Committee is mindful of the risks in this new system, and will 

monitor the situation closely. 

IMPROVE AVIATION SAFETY

The Committee recommends $484,214,200 for programs and ac- tivities designed to improve aviation safety. This is $78,874,200 

more than the budget estimate. The Committee continues to place 

its highest priority on aviation safety programs, and has reallocated funding from other areas of FAA’s capital budget to reflect 

this priority.

Terminal business unit.—The Committee recommends 

$151,183,000 for programs under this budget activity of the terminal business unit. The following table compares the Committee 

recommendation to the budget estimate:

Budget

estimate 

Committee

recommended 

NEXRAD upgrade ................................................................................................................. $9,100,000 $9,100,000

Terminal doppler weather radar .......................................................................................... 7,700,000 5,700,000

Airport surface detection equipment (ASDE) ...................................................................... 10,000,000 10,000,000

AMASS .................................................................................................................................. 21,700,000 14,583,000

Weather systems processor ................................................................................................. 2,200,000 2,200,000

ASDE–X ................................................................................................................................ 90,300,000 109,600,000

Total ....................................................................................................................... 141,000,000 151,183,000

Airport movement areas safety system (AMASS).—The recommendation defers a portion of pre-planned product improvements and human factors modifications, a reduction of $7,117,000 

below the budget estimate. 

ASDE–X.—The recommendation provides $109,600,000 for continued acquisition and installation of low-cost ASDE systems, an 

increase of $14,300,000 above the budget estimate. The following 

sites are included for funding:

St. Louis, MO 

Los Angeles, CA 

Dallas, TX 

Chicago, IL 

Louisville, KY 

Memphis, TN 

Atlanta, GA 

Houston, TX (Hobby) 

Hartford, CT 

San Jose, CA 

San Antonio, TX 

Sacramento, CA 

Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood, FL 

Honolulu, HI 

Oakland, CA 

Washington Dulles, VA

The Committee continues to support the ASDE–X system, and 

encourages FAA to consider modifications of the system which 

would allow cost-effective deployment of the system at mediumand small-sized airports. The original premise of this program was 

to expand the applications of runway incursion technology, not just 

replace the aging ASDE–3 radar system at major international airports. The Committee also notes that a large percentage of runway 

incursions occur at medium and small airports. 

Aviation safety analysis system.—This request includes 17 separate ADP subsystem upgrades in the areas of aviation medicine, 

safety, and security. The recommendation deletes or defers low priVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
59

ority ADP upgrades which can be phased more slowly in order to 

fund higher priority activities. The Committee’s recommendation 

includes no funding for the joint vulnerability analysis system. If 

worthwhile, this activity should be requested by the Transportation 

Security Administration. 

Safe flight 21.—The Committee recommends $40,000,000, an increase of $10,200,000 above the budget estimate. Of the funds provided, $18,600,000 is for the Ohio River Valley Project, $19,900,000 

is for Project Capstone; and $1,500,000 is for development of standards for automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS–B). 

Advanced technology development and prototyping.—The Committee recommends $43,100,000, to be distributed as follows:

Budget

estimate 

Committee

recommended 

Runway incursion ................................................................................................................ $6,700,000 $6,700,000

Aviation system capacity improvement ............................................................................... 6,300,000 4,000,000

Separation standards .......................................................................................................... 2,200,000 2,200,000

Airspace management laboratory ........................................................................................ 4,600,000 4,600,000

GA/vertical flight technology ............................................................................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000

Operational concept validation ........................................................................................... 2,500,000 —

Software engineering ........................................................................................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000

NAS requirements development ........................................................................................... 3,000,000 —

WAAS .................................................................................................................................... 3,100,000 3,100,000

LAAS ..................................................................................................................................... 2,800,000 2,800,000

Domestic RVSM .................................................................................................................... 2,200,000 4,200,000

Development system assurance .......................................................................................... 2,700,000 —

Safer skies ........................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 —

Lithium technologies ........................................................................................................... — 1,000,000

Phased array radar technology ........................................................................................... .......................... 3,000,000

Airport research ................................................................................................................... .......................... 7,500,000

Fogeye .................................................................................................................................. .......................... 2,000,000

Total ....................................................................................................................... 41,100,000 43,100,000

Aviation system capacity improvement.—The recommendation reduces funding for several studies. The Committee believes that 

some of these activities, such as development of performance measures for the air traffic system and expansion of data collection efforts for performance measurement, can and should be conducted 

as a routine management expense of the agency through its operating budget, and not as a capital expense. 

Unjustified requests.—The Committee has deleted funds for 

‘‘operational concept validation’’ (¥$2,500,000) and ‘‘development 

system assurance’’ (¥$2,700,000) due to lack of justification. 

NAS requirements development.—The Committee deletes the 

$3,000,000 requested for NAS requirements development, and suggests the agency pursue this type of activity through air traffic requirements activities funded in the operating budget. 

Domestic reduced vertical separation minima.—The Committee 

recommends $4,200,000 for domestic reduced vertical separation 

minima (RVSM). The additional $2,000,000 provided is for final installation of a specialized ground-based system to estimate the geometric height of aircraft. Installations should be located at sites in 

the United States where there is a high volume of general aviation 

aircraft being tested, flown, and serviced. 

Safer skies.—The recommendation deletes the $3,000,000 requested for this activity. Funding of $10,000,000 is provided for 

60

this project under FAA ‘‘Operations’’. The Committee believes this 

is sufficient to sustain this effort in fiscal year 2003. 

Lithium technologies.—The recommendation includes $1,000,000 

for the deployment of lithium technologies to prevent and mitigate 

alkali-silica reactivity. 

Phased array radar technology.—The bill includes $3,000,000 to 

continue the collaborative effort between FAA and NOAA’s National Severe Storms Laboratory to continue research and testing 

of phased array radar technology and to incorporate airport/aircraft 

tracking and weather information. This is the same level of funding 

as provided for each of the past two fiscal years. 

Airport research.—The recommendation includes $7,500,000 for 

airport-related technology research. This is essentially the same as 

the $7,457,000 provided for fiscal year 2002. The budget requested 

an increase to $16,429,000, funded out of ‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’. The Committee notes that research is not an authorized use 

of grants-in-aid funds, and believes this work is more appropriately 

funded under this appropriation. 

Fogeye.—The recommendation includes $2,000,000 to continue 

evaluation of emerging technology, known as fogeye, which utilizes 

ultraviolet light, in the solar-blind spectrum, to assist in low visibility landings and prevent runway incursions. An appropriation of 

$1,000,000 was made for this assessment in fiscal year 2002. An 

evaluation of this technology by the Volpe National Transportation 

Systems Center dated September 5, 2002 stated: ‘‘The conclusions 

thus far are the technology has considerable merit, and therefore 

the FogEye assessments should continue, as planned, to determine 

the most attractive and effective aviation applications’’. 

Louisville, KY technology demonstration.—The bill includes 

$10,000,000 to continue air traffic control technology demonstration 

activities at the Louisville International Airport in Kentucky. 

Funds will be utilized to integrate ADS–B technology into the common ARTS IIIE infrastructure, install a surface movement management system, acquire a laser-directed radar system for enhanced wake vortex research, develop procedures for continuous deceleration approaches, install an infrared perimeter security system, and provide for the initial installation of ADS–B and moving 

map displays in Kentucky Air National Guard C–130 aircraft. The 

continued integrated demonstration and deployment of these new 

technologies will provide valuable insights into improved safety, security, and efficiency of the national airspace system. 

Explosive detection technology.—The recommendation includes 

$176,691,200 for explosive detection systems, to be transferred to 

the Transportation Security Administration. This is $55,191,200 

more than the budget estimate. 

IMPROVE EFFICIENCY OF THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM

The Committee recommends $879,885,300 for programs and activities designed to improve the efficiency of the air traffic control 

system. This is $39,300,000 below the budget estimate. 

Terminal business unit.—The Committee recommends 

$516,280,300 for programs under this budget activity of the terminal business unit. The following table compares the Committee 

recommendation to the budget estimate:

61

Budget

estimate 

Committee

recommended 

Terminal automation program (STARS) ............................................................................... $166,000,000 $151,200,000

ATCBI–6 ............................................................................................................................... 47,100,000 35,000,000

ATC en route radar facilities improvements ....................................................................... 3,000,000 3,000,000

Terminal ATC facilities replacement ................................................................................... 108,600,000 124,100,000

ATC/TRACON facilities improvement ................................................................................... 52,755,192 44,000,000

Potomac TRACON ................................................................................................................. 2,700,000 2,700,000

Northern California TRACON ................................................................................................ 200,000 200,000

Dallas/Fort Worth TRACON ................................................................................................... 1,600,000 1,600,000

Terminal digital radar (ASR–11) ......................................................................................... 123,400,000 80,000,000

ASR–9 SLEP ......................................................................................................................... 23,000,000 23,000,000

Mode S provide .................................................................................................................... 3,000,000 3,000,000

Terminal applied engineering .............................................................................................. 8,200,000 4,000,000

Precision runway monitors .................................................................................................. 1,000,000 19,000,000

Houston area air traffic system .......................................................................................... 6,000,000 6,000,000

Terminal ASR improvements ............................................................................................... 1,380,304 1,380,300

PCS moves ........................................................................................................................... 3,100,000 3,100,000

Transponder landing system (TLS) ...................................................................................... .......................... 15,000,000

Total ....................................................................................................................... 551,035,496 516,280,300

Standard terminal automation replacement system (STARS).— The recommendation provides $151,200,000 for continued implementation of the STARS program. The reduction would defer some 

of the planned growth in system upgrades. 

ATC beacon interrogator-6 (ATCBI–6).—The recommendation 

provides $35,000,000, a reduction of $12,100,000. 

Terminal ATC facilities replacement.—The Committee recommends $123,100,000, to be distributed as follows:

Pago Pago, American Samoa ................................................................ $175,000

Baltimore, MD ....................................................................................... 2,088,581

Dulles International Airport, VA .......................................................... 600,000

Deer Valley, AZ ...................................................................................... 803,196

Memphis, TN .......................................................................................... 1,147,000

Portland, OR (Tracon) ........................................................................... 5,500,000

Addison Field, TX .................................................................................. 5,700,000

Reno, NV ................................................................................................ 8,349,000

Fort Wayne, IN ...................................................................................... 3,539,000

Newport News, VA ................................................................................ 6,400,000

LaGuardia, NY ....................................................................................... 9,460,000

St. Louis, MD (Tracon) .......................................................................... 1,500,000

Corpus Christi, TX ................................................................................. 700,000

Beaumont, TX ........................................................................................ 1,000,000

Seattle, WA ............................................................................................ 550,000

Seattle, WA (Tracon) ............................................................................. 4,782,701

Salina, KS ............................................................................................... 500,000

Newark, NJ ............................................................................................ 3,000,000

Port Columbus, OH ............................................................................... 2,100,000

Grand Canyon, AZ ................................................................................. 255,898

Savannah, GA ........................................................................................ 919,190

Newburgh, NY ....................................................................................... 2,065,000

Richmond, VA ........................................................................................ 550,000

Vero Beach, FL ...................................................................................... 878,775

Everett, WA ............................................................................................ 925,000

Roanoke, VA ........................................................................................... 550,000

Merrimack, NH (BCT) ........................................................................... 4,700,000

Phoenix, AZ ............................................................................................ 14,107,919

Manchester, NH ..................................................................................... 943,609

Wilkes-Barre, PA ................................................................................... 2,000,000

Topeka, KS ............................................................................................. 1,690,131

Billings, MT ............................................................................................ 2,120,000

McCarran Intl, NV ................................................................................ 4,000,000

Provo Municipal, NV ............................................................................. 1,000,000

St. Louis Downtown, MO ...................................................................... 4,000,000

North Bend Municipal, OR ................................................................... 1,500,000

62

Reno/Tahoe Intl, NV .............................................................................. 5,000,000

Chippewa Valley Regional WI .............................................................. 7,000,000

Wittman Regional, WI ........................................................................... 5,000,000

Double Eagle II, NM ............................................................................. 2,000,000

Kalamazoo/Battle Creek, MI ................................................................. 2,000,000

Columbia Metropolitan, SC .................................................................. 2,000,000

ATC/Tracon facilities improvement.—The recommendation includes a reduction of $3,700,000 in regional studies for possible facility consolidations and $5,000,000 in facilities improvements to 

accommodate implementation of the STARS system. The Committee believes the $24,744,800 remaining for STARS facility upgrades is sufficient to address high priority sites next year. 

Terminal digital radar (ASR–11).—The Committee recommends 

$80,000,000 for the troubled terminal digital radar (ASR–11) program, a reduction of $43,400,000 below the budget estimate but 

$15,000,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2002. The 

FAA has not provided the Committee with convincing evidence that 

this program’s substantial development problems have been resolved. 

Terminal applied engineering.—The Committee recommends 

$4,000,000, the same level as provided for fiscal year 2002. 

Precision runway monitors.—The Committee recommends 

$19,000,000, an increase of $18,000,000 above the budget estimate. 

Currently, precision runway monitors are installed at international 

airports in Minneapolis-St. Paul, St. Louis, and Philadelphia. Two 

other systems are expected to be commissioned during fiscal year 

2002, in New York City (John F. Kennedy International) and San 

Francisco. The system now being installed in San Francisco was 

originally scheduled for installation at Atlanta. However, due to 

delays in construction of the new runway in Atlanta, the FAA 

agreed to re-site this radar system in San Francisco, and authorized manufacture of an additional system for Atlanta. However, 

since that time, the requirement for a PRM system in Atlanta has 

slipped again, until at least the year 2005. For this reason, the 

Committee expects the FAA to install the system currently being 

manufactured at the Cleveland Hopkins International Airport in 

Ohio. Funding is included in this recommendation for those activities. In addition, the bill includes funding for the acquisition of 

three additional PRM systems, one of which is to be installed at 

Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport in Georgia. In past years, 

the Committee has opposed the acquisition of small quantities of 

this system due to its high unit cost. The Committee is pleased 

that the manufacturer has been able to reduce these unit costs, 

making further acquisition affordable. 

Transponder landing system.—The Committee recommends 

$15,000,000, to be distributed as follows:

Location Amount 

Minden-Tahoe Airport, NV ................................................................... $2,100,000

Omak Airport, WA ................................................................................. 2,100,000

Richland Airport, WA ............................................................................ 2,100,000

Truckee Tahoe Airport CA .................................................................... 2,100,000

Driggs Reed Memorial, ID .................................................................... 2,100,000

Sandpoint Airport, ID ............................................................................ 2,100,000

LaGrande/Union County, OR ............................................................... 2,100,000

Installation of prior systems ................................................................. 300,000

Total ............................................................................................. 15,000,000

63

Free flight phase one.—A reduction of $3,300,000 is recommended 

to fund other budgetary priorities. The Committee directs that 

none of this reduction shall be allocated to the CTAS traffic management advisor—single center (TMA–SC) program. 

Automated surface observing system (ASOS).—The Committee 

recommends an additional $655,000, to provide advanced weather 

observing systems in the following locations:

Location Amount 

West Houston Airport, TX .................................................................... $150,000

Driggs Reed Memorial Airport, ID ....................................................... 150,000

Indiana Freeman Municipal Airport, IN ............................................. 355,000

National airspace management automation program 

(NASMAP).—The Committee recommends deferral of the 

$1,900,000 requested for this program due to weak justification and 

the need to fund higher priorities with clearer goals. 

New York integrated control complex.—The bill includes 

$5,000,000 for initial design of an integrated air traffic control complex in the New York City area. Such a facility could reduce air 

traffic service inefficiencies currently experienced with en route 

and radar facilities in different locations. 

INCREASE CAPACITY OF THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

The Committee recommends $394,875,000 for programs and activities designed to increase the capacity of the national airspace 

system. This is $41,375,000 more than the budget estimate. 

Navigation and landing aids.—The recommendation includes 

$291,175,000 for navigation and landing aids. A table comparing 

the budget estimate to the Committee recommendation for these 

activities is shown below:

Budget

estimate 

Committee

recommended 

Local area augmentation system ........................................................................................ $55,800,000 $55,800,000

Wide area augmentation system ......................................................................................... 110,500,000 98,900,000

VOR/DME .............................................................................................................................. 2,200,000 2,200,000

ALSIP .................................................................................................................................... 3,200,000 17,575,000

ILS establishment ................................................................................................................ 23,500,000 53,500,000

Runway visual range ........................................................................................................... 7,200,000 13,000,000

DME sustain ........................................................................................................................ 2,100,000 2,100,000

NDB sustain ......................................................................................................................... 1,200,000 1,200,000

Visual navaids (PAPI/REIL) .................................................................................................. 8,900,000 8,900,000

VASI replace with PAPI ........................................................................................................ 6,300,000 6,300,000

IAPA ...................................................................................................................................... 6,900,000 3,700,000

Navigation & landing aids—SLEP ...................................................................................... 3,000,000 3,000,000

Loran–C ............................................................................................................................... 13,000,000 25,000,000

Nationwide differential GPS ................................................................................................ 6,000,000 0

Total ....................................................................................................................... 249,800,000 291,175,000

Wide area augmentation system (WAAS).— The reduction of 

$11,600,000 is based upon program savings realized earlier this 

year when program requirements were changed by the FAA. 

Approach lighting system improvement program (ALSIP).—The 

recommended funding is to be distributed as follows:

Location Activity Amount 

Nationwide .................................................................. Items in budget estimate .......................................... $3,200,000

Jackson Airport, KY ..................................................... Lighting ...................................................................... 175,000 

Somerset Airport, KY ................................................... Runway lighting ......................................................... 500,000 

64

Location Activity Amount 

Bowman Field, KY ....................................................... Airfield lighting .......................................................... 600,000 

Max Westheimer, OK ................................................... Install MALSR ............................................................. 1,000,000 

Nationwide .................................................................. MALSR acquisition ..................................................... 7,000,000 

Nationwide .................................................................. PAPI acquisition ......................................................... 3,000,000 

Nationwide .................................................................. ALSF–2 acquisition .................................................... 2,000,000 

Newark International, NJ ............................................ PAPI installation, runway 22L ................................... 100,000

Total .............................................................. .................................................................................... 17,575,000

Acquisition of medium-intensity approach lighting system with 

runway indicator lights.—For many years, the FAA has been acquiring medium-intensity approach lighting systems with runway 

indicator lights. Originally sole-sourced, this product now has multiple manufacturing candidates. The Committee encourages FAA to 

consider recompeting this product, in order to assure the agency 

the opportunity for cost savings. 

Instrument landing system establishment.—The recommendation 

includes $53,500,000 for establishment of instrument landing systems (ILS). Funding includes an additional $7,325,000 for the national ILS replacement program and $22,675,000 for specific ILS 

locations as shown below:

Location Activity Amount 

Richard Arthur-Fayette Field, AL ................................ Install ILS ................................................................... $500,000 

Rickenbacker Intl, OH ................................................. Install ILS ................................................................... 750,000 

Stuttgart Municipal, AR .............................................. Purchase and install ILS ........................................... 2,000,000 

Plymouth Municipal, MA ............................................. Install ILS on runway 06 ........................................... 600,000 

Lambert St. Louis Intl, MO ......................................... Navigation aids .......................................................... 3,750,000 

Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky, OH .............................. Navigation aids for new runway ............................... 4,000,000 

Pangborn Memorial, WA ............................................. Install ILS ................................................................... 2,100,000 

Winder Barrow Airport, GA .......................................... Purchase and install ILS ........................................... 500,000 

LaGuardia International, NY ....................................... Purchase/install glideslope ........................................ 1,000,000 

Talladega Municipal, AL ............................................. Purchase/install ILS ................................................... 500,000 

Auburn-Opelika Municipal, AL .................................... Purchase/install glideslope ........................................ 750,000 

Mena Intermountain Regional, AR ............................. Install, Loc/Gldslp; NDB; OM ..................................... 1,225,000 

Napa County Airport, CA ............................................ Install glideslope ....................................................... 1,000,000 

Hayward (Sawyer County), WI ..................................... Purchase/install ILS ................................................... 2,000,000 

Robert Gray AAF, TX ................................................... Purchase/install ILS ................................................... 2,000,000

Total .............................................................. .................................................................................... 22,675,000

Runway visual range (RVR).—The Committee recommends 

$13,000,000, an increase of $5,800,000 above the budget estimate. 

The additional funds are for continued acquisition of next generation RVR systems ($5,000,000) and for installation of a runway visual range visibility instrument at Westchester County Airport in 

New York ($800,000). 

Instrument approach procedures automation (IAPA).—The Committee recommends $3,700,000, a reduction of $3,200,000 below the 

budget estimate. The recommendation holds such costs to the level 

approved for fiscal year 2002. 

Loran-C.—The committee continues to support the modernization 

of the Loran-C navigation system, and recommends $25,000,000, 

an increase of $12,000,000 above the budget estimate. The Committee remains disappointed that FAA proposes to reduce funding 

for this initiative each year in order to fund lower-priority activities. 

Nationwide differential GPS.—The Committee recommends no 

funding for this project, a savings of $6,000,000 from the budget esVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
65

timate. The Committee has long questioned the merits of this effort, which has been budgeted, at one time or another, in virtually 

all of the modal administrations, including the Federal Highway 

Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, the Office of 

the Secretary of Transportation, the United States Coast Guard, 

and now the Federal Aviation Administration. The Committee wonders how any program could be managed effectively with such frenetic activity, and takes this as a sign that experts in DOT question the need and value of the program. The value of this effort to 

FAA is far from clear, and use of trust fund revenues, paid by air 

travelers, for an activity with minimal relevance to air travel seems 

highly inappropriate. 

IMPROVE RELIABILITY OF THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

The Committee recommends $434,010,000 for programs and activities designed to increase the reliability of the national airspace 

system. This is $9,400,000 below the $3,700,000 above the budget 

estimate. 

NAS infrastructure management system (NIMS).—The Committee recommends that funding for this effort be held to the level 

provided for fiscal year 2002, a reduction of $13,100,000 below the 

budget estimate. 

IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF MISSION SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $411,919,500 for programs and activities designed to increase the efficiency of FAA’s support services for capital programs. This is $32,100,000 below the budget estimate. 

Operational data management system.—The Committee recommends that funding for this effort be held to the level provided 

for fiscal year 2002, a reduction of $7,300,000 below the budget estimate. 

Logistics support systems and facilities.—The Committee recommends that funding for this effort be held to the level provided 

for fiscal year 2002, a reduction of $4,300,000 below the budget estimate. 

Facility security risk management.—The Committee recommends 

$25,000,000, a reduction of $12,300,000. The recommendation deletes funding for guard services, as such funding would be provided 

with operation funds (¥$7,300,000), and lowers funding for building upgrades in recognition of significant funding provided in fiscal 

year 2002 (¥$5,000,000). 

Transition engineering support.—The Committee recommends 

$37,000,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 to fund higher priority activities. 

Technical services support contract (TSSC).—The Committee recommends $44,700,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 available from 

contract savings experienced in the program. 

NAS facilities OSHA and environmental standards compliance.— The bill includes $28,400,000, a reduction of $4,200,000 below the 

budget estimate. The recommendation holds these costs to the fiscal year 2002 level due to budget constraints. 

Flight management system procedures, Newark and Teterboro 

Airports, NJ.—The Committee acknowledges the important ongoing 

work of Mitrie’s Center for Advanced Aviation Systems DevelopVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
66

ment (CAASD) in developing RNAV/flight management system procedures for Newark and Teterboro Airports in New Jersey. These 

procedures will be the foundation for the New Jersey/New York airspace redesign and the use of ‘‘free flight’’ technologies. The Committee expects FAA to continue using CAASD to develop RNAV 

procedures for Newark, Teterboro, John F. Kennedy International, 

LaGuardia International, and other airports where new runways 

are planned or under construction. The Committee supports the 

use of up to $1,000,000 in funding for this important work in fiscal 

year 2003. 

Research aircraft replacement.—The bill includes $25,000,000 to 

acquire a replacement for the 33-year old B–727 research and development aircraft stationed at the FAA Technical Center in New 

Jersey. The FAA has been attempting to replace the current obsolete aircraft for some time, and maintenance expenses and downtime are rising rapidly. The Committee believes this is a high priority acquisition project that can no longer be deferred. 

PERSONNEL COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

The Committee recommends $421,118,000 for personnel compensation and benefits costs related to FAA’s acquisition personnel. 

This is $20,000,000 below the budget estimate. This includes a reduction of $18,551,000 to delete funding for the accruing costs of 

federal employee retirement and health care expenses, as explained 

in an earlier section of this report. 

ACCOUNTWIDE ADJUSTMENTS

National airspace (NAS) handoff.—The Committee recommends 

a transfer of $70,000,000 from this appropriation to the agency’s 

operations budget for NAS handoff costs, as explained under ‘‘Operations’’. These costs are appropriately budgeted as an operating expense of the agency, not a capital expense.

BILL LANGUAGE

Capital investment plan.—The bill continues to require the submission of a five year capital investment plan. 

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 1 ..................................................... $245,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ..................................................... 124,000,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................. 138,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ ¥107,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 .............................................. +14,000,000 1 Includes $50,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations. 

This appropriation provides funding for long-term research, engineering and development programs to improve the air traffic control system and to raise the level of aviation safety, as authorized 

by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the Federal Aviation Act. The appropriation also finances the research, engineering 

and development needed to establish or modify federal air regulations. 

67

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $138,000,000, a decrease of 

$107,000,000 below the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and 

$14,000,000 above the President’s budget request. The reduction 

below the fiscal year 2002 funding level is largely due to the transfer of aviation security research from FAA to the Transportation 

Security Administration. This activity received $94,511,000 in 

funding in fiscal year 2002. 

A table showing the fiscal year 2002 enacted level, the fiscal year 

2003 budget estimate, and the Committee recommendation follows:

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR 2003

Program Fiscal year 2002 enacted 

Fiscal year 2003 estimated Committee

recommended 

Improve Aviation Safety: 

Reduce commercial aviation fatalities: 

Fire research and safety ........................................................... $5,242,000 $6,429,000 $5,500,000

Propulsion and Fuel systems .................................................... 5,998,000 3,998,000 5,998,000

Advanced materials/structural safety ...................................... 1,338,000 1,374,000 1,374,000

Flight safety/atmospheric hazards ........................................... 4,494,000 3,101,000 6,000,000

Aging aircraft ............................................................................ 26,600,000 20,974,000 19,131,000

Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention ................................... 2,794,000 1,920,000 1,920,000

Flightdeck safety/systems integration ...................................... 8,003,000 8,411,000 8,411,000

Reduce general aviation fatalities: 

Propulsion and fuel systems .................................................... 2,570,000 1,713,000 1,713,000

Advanced materials/structural safety ...................................... 1,636,000 1,679,000 1,679,000

Flight safety/atmospheric hazards ........................................... 1,926,000 1,329,000 1,329,000

Aging aircraft ............................................................................ 6,400,000 5,243,000 10,243,000

Flightdeck safety/systems integration ...................................... 1,903,000 2,000,000 2,000,000

Aviation System Safety: 

Aviation safety risk analysis ............................................................. 5,784,000 6,926,000 5,784,000

ATC/AF human factors ....................................................................... 8,500,000 10,317,000 8,098,000

Aeromedical research ......................................................................... 6,121,000 6,603,000 6,603,000

Weather research ............................................................................... 13,877,000 19,406,000 19,406,000

Improve Efficiency of the ATC System: 

Weather research efficiency ............................................................... 9,791,000 9,099,000 6,000,000

Reduce Environmental Impacts: 

Environment and energy .................................................................... 22,081,000 7,698,000 22,100,000

Improve Mission Efficiency: 

System planning and resource management .................................... 1,200,000 1,459,000 1,000,000

Technical laboratory facilities ........................................................... 12,250,000 6,455,000 6,455,000

Strategic partnerships ....................................................................... 400,000 610,000 0

System Security Technology: 

Explosives and weapons technology .................................................. 32,624,000 0 0

Airport security technology integration .............................................. 2,084,000 0 0

Aviation security human factors ....................................................... 5,163,000 0 0

Aircraft hardening .............................................................................. 4,640,000 0 0

Information system security .............................................................. 2,581,000 0 0

Accountwide Adjustment: 

CSRS/FEHBP accruals ........................................................................ 0 ¥2,744,000 ¥2,744,000

Total ............................................................................................... 195,000,000 124,000,000 138,000,000

IMPROVE AVIATION SAFETY

Fire research and safety.—The Committee recommends 

$5,500,000, a reduction of $929,000 below the budget estimate. The 

reduction would allow a smaller rate of increase over the fiscal year 

2002 enacted funding. 

Propulsion and fuel systems.—The Committee recommendation 

includes an additional $2,000,000 to continue the work of the speVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
68

cialty metals processing consortium, an activity which has been 

funded for many years. 

Flight safety/atmosphere hazards research.—The Committee recommendation includes $3,000,000 to continue the development of 

in-flight simulator training for commercial pilots at the Roswell Industrial Center in New Mexico. 

Aging aircraft.—The Committee recommendations includes 

$5,000,000 for new flight safety research equipment at the National Institute for Aviation Research. 

AVIATION SYSTEM SAFETY

Aviation safety risk analysis and air traffic control/airways facilities human factors.—The Committee recommends funding at or 

slightly below the fiscal year 2002 enacted funding level for these 

two activities.

IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM

Weather research efficiency.—The Committee recommends 

$6,000,000 for this activity, a reduction of $3,099,000 due to budget 

constraints. 

REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The Committee recommends $22,100,000 for this activity, an increase of $14,402,000 above the budget estimate. Of the funds provided, $850,000 is for a study of the effectiveness of current research in aircraft noise reduction technology, to be conducted by 

the Louisville Regional Airport Authority in Kentucky. Also included is the funding requested by the FAA for updating noise and 

emission models and $15,000,000 to speed up the introduction of 

lower noise aircraft technologies. Within the funding provided, FAA 

is directed to conduct, in concert with an affected airport, a further 

study of low frequency aircraft noise. The flaws identified with the 

previous low frequency noise impact study should be corrected with 

this follow-on study. 

IMPROVE MISSION EFFICIENCY

System planning and resource management.—The Committee 

recommends $1,000,000. The reduction is due to budget constraints. 

Strategic partnerships.—The Committee recommends no funding 

for this project in fiscal year 2003, a reduction of $610,000 below 

the budget estimate. This is similar to the Committee’s recommendation for fiscal year 2002. The Committee continues to believe that this is a low priority activity that can be deferred. 

69

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

Liquidation of contract 

authorization Limitation on obligations 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 1 ............... $1,800,000,000 ($3,300,000,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............... 3,100,000,000 (3,400,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................ 3,100,000,000 (3,400,000,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .......... +1,300,000,000 (+100,000,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ........ ................................ ................................ 1 Excludes $175,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations and a $301,720,000 rescission of contract authority. 

The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of $3,100,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. This funding provides for liquidation of obligations incurred pursuant to contract authority and annual limitations on obligations for grants-inaid for airport planning and development, noise compatibility and 

planning, the military airport program, reliever airports, airport 

program administration, and other authorized activities. This is the 

same as requested in the President’s budget and $1,300,000,000 

above the level enacted for fiscal year 2002. 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The bill includes a limitation on obligations of $3,400,000,000 for 

fiscal year 2003. This is the same as the President’s budget request 

and $100,000,000 above the fiscal year 2002 level. This level of 

funding is required by Public Law 106–181 and protected by points 

of order in the House. 

A table showing the distribution of these funds compared to the 

fiscal year 2002 levels and the President’s budget request follows:

Activity 

Fiscal year—

2002 enacted 2003 estimate 2003 recommended 

Formula grants: $2,106,200,000 $2,109,100,000 $2,109,100,000 

Primary airports ............................................................... (1,028,400,000) (1,028,500,000) (1,028,500,000) 

Cargo service airports ..................................................... (96,700,000) (97,100,000) (97,100,000) 

Alaska set-aside .............................................................. (21,100,000) (21,300,000) (21,300,000) 

States (general aviation airports) ................................... (644,600,000) (647,200,000) (647,200,000) 

Carryover .......................................................................... (315,400,000) (315,000,000) (315,000,000) 

Discretionary grants: 1,116,800,000 1,126,800,000 1,126,800,000 

Noise compatibility set-aside .......................................... (270,600,000) (274,000,000) (274,000,000) 

Military airport program set-aside .................................. (31,800,000) (32,200,000) (32,200,000) 

Reliever set-aside ............................................................ (5,300,000) (5,300,000) (5,300,000) 

Capacity/safety/security/noise set-aside ......................... (366,200,000) (370,800,000) (370,800,000) 

Remaining discretionary .................................................. (122,100,000) (123,600,000) (123,600,000) 

Returned entitlements ..................................................... (320,800,000) (320,800,000) (320,800,000) 

Administration: 57,050,000 68,257,000 62,820,000

FY 2002 base funding ..................................................... (57,050,000) (57,050,000) (57,050,000) 

PC&B increases ............................................................... N/A (6,284,000) (2,647,000) 

Discretionary increases: 

Advisory circular contract ....................................... N/A (1,600,000) (800,000) 

Airport financial reporting system .......................... N/A (500,000) (250,000) 

E-government data transfer ................................... N/A (1,000,000) ..............................

70

Activity 

Fiscal year—

2002 enacted 2003 estimate 2003 recommended 

Analysis of PFC program ........................................ N/A (300,000) (300,000) 

Environmental streamlining .................................... N/A (1,773,000) (1,773,000) 

Small community air service .................................................... 20,000,000 .............................. (1) 

Airport technology research ...................................................... (2) 16,429,000 (3) 

Essential air service ................................................................. .............................. 83,000,000 (4)

Total ............................................................................. .............................. .............................. ..............................

1 Recommendation includes $20,000,000 under Federal Aviation Administration. 

2 Airport Technology Research was funded under ‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ in fiscal year 2002 at a level of $7,457,000. 3 Recommendation includes $7,500,000 under ‘‘Facilities and equipment’’. 4 Recommendation includes $50,000,000 under ‘‘Office of the secretary’’. 

DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

Within the overall obligation limitation in this bill, 

$1,126,800,000 is available for discretionary grants to airports. 

This is $10,000,000 more than provided for fiscal year 2002. Within 

this obligation limitation, the Committee directs that priority be 

given to grant applications involving further development of the 

following airports:

Airport name State Project description 

Abbeville Municipal Airport AL Land acquisition; runway overlay/extension. 

Andalusia/Opp Municipal 

Airport.

AL Overlay airport pavement surfaces. 

Atmore, AL (Escambia 

County) Airport.

AL Improvements to safety zones, land acquisitions for approaches, construction 

of additional apron—removal of obstructions, construction of new taxiway/

apron, conduct repairs. 

Craig Field Airport .............. AL Overlay runway and construct parallel taxiway. 

Dothan Regional Airport ..... AL Runway safety area improvements—runway 14. 

Fairhope Municipal Airport AL Runway replacement & conversion of existing runway to taxiway.. 

Headline Municipal Airport AL Land acquisition; runway/taxiway extension. 

Huntsville International Airport.AL Phase III of air cargo apron expansion, including grade,base, pave, and drainage improvements; complete final phase of intermodal transit facility, including completion of air cargo building and associated ramp to provide 

truck access. 

Jackson Airport ................... AL Eliminate safety violations; construction; land acquisition. 

Lamar County Airport ......... AL Runway resurfacing improvements. 

Lawrence County Airport .... AL Runway rehabilitation—runway 13/31. 

Madison County Executive 

Airport.

AL Security fencing; drainage improvements; land acquisition; parallel taxiway. 

Mobile Airport Authority ...... AL Runway construction/rehabilitation; ramp repair/rehabilitation. 

Montgomery Regional Airport (Dannelly Field).AL Third and final phase of major renovation to passenger terminal building. 

Oneonta Airport .................. AL Runway extension. 

Ozark Airport ....................... AL Land acquisition for runway extension. 

Prattville Municipal Airport AL Runway; aircraft parking apron overlay; airport access road. 

Richard Arthur-Fayette Field AL Improvement & extend runway; install ILS & ATIS; improve runway markings 

and fencing. 

Roundtree Field Airport ...... AL Apron expansion. 

Weedon Field Airport .......... AL Construct parallel taxiway. 

American Samoa Airport .... Amer 

Samoa 

Airport expansion; fuel tank relocation. 

Batesville Regional Airport AR Install localizer—DME; runway lighting; relocate hangars; extend taxiway. 

Baxter County Regional Airport.AR Runway extension; install instrument landing system. 

Benton Airport Relocation .. AR Relocation of airport to new, donated site. 

Blytheville Aeroplex ............. AR ILS upgrade; automated weather observation system (AWOS); concrete repair 

and replacement. 

Camden Municipal Airport—Harrell Field.AR Purchase and upgrade facility for construction of a new aircraft manufacturing/repair facility on existing airport. 

Hot Springs Airport ............. AR Construction of 14 general aviation hangers and an addition to airport terminal. 

71

Airport name State Project description 

Jonesboro Municipal Airport AR Runway extension & strengthening; hangar area development; parallel taxiway 

extension; on-field airport rescue station; overlay runway; strengthening. 

Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport.AR Expansion of commercial aviation ramp; expansion of terminal; additional taxiway; additional freight ramp and taxiway for air cargo; aircraft parking. 

Deer Valley Airport .............. AZ Various improvements. 

Williams Gateway Airport ... AZ Funds for construction of north ramp taxiway. 

San Francisco International 

Airport.

CA Security enhancements. 

Fresno Chandler Downtown 

Airport.

CA Historic restoration of terminal. 

Livermore Municipal Airport CA Security enhancements. 

Fresno Yosemite International Airport.CA Runway rehabilitation; upgraded access control system; additional staffing 

and equipment for airport public safety team; redesign of ticketing/baggage 

claim areas. 

Lampson Airport ................. CA Construction of low-pressure wastewater collection system and central pump 

station to send airport’s wastewater to treatment plant. 

Little River AirportMendocino County.CA Land acquisition. 

Meadows Field Airport ........ CA Completle runway extension and attendant taxiway for runway 30L; master 

plan; security improvements. 

Palm Springs International 

Airport.

CA CNG fueling station; extend high-pressure natural gas pipeline one mile. 

Riverside Municipal Airport CA Purchase 14 acres on west side of airport. 

Southern California Logistics Airport.CA Runway extension. 

Stockton Metropolitan Airport.CA Construct cargo apron on north side of Runway 11L/29R. 

Denver International Airport CO Construction of runway 16R–34L. 

Crystal River-Citrus County 

Airport.

FL Security upgrades: video monitoring electronic security access; fencing; ramp 

lighting. 

Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood 

International Airport.

FL Develop design and procurement documents for automated people mover. 

Gainesville Regional Airport FL Rehabilitation of primary runway; storm water drainage; lengthening of secondary runway. 

Inverness-Citrus County 

Airport.

FL Security upgrades: video monitoring; electronic security access; fencing; ramp 

lighting. 

Jacksonville Airport ............. FL Taxiway F rehabilitation and extension. 

Kissimmee Gateway Airport FL West aircraft apron and access road. 

Miami International Airport FL Replacement of 41,000 square yard northwest apron for aircraft parking; security enhancements. 

Orlando International Airport.FL Implement necessary wildlife-attractant mitigation; completion of fourth runway. 

Orlando Sanford Airport ..... FL Runway 9R/27L extension; construction of aircraft taxiway and pavement areas 

to access hanger complex. 

Sanford Airport ................... FL Airport entrance streetscape improvement; installation of landscaping and new 

identification sign at entrance to passenger terminals; installation of irrigation system. 

St. Petersburg-Clearwater 

International Airport.

FL Completion of runway extension. 

Cherokee County Airport ..... GA Land acquisition, site prep, paving for runway extension and parallel taxiway. 

Glynco Jetport Terminal ...... GA Renovations to modernize facility for operations and security. 

Paudling County Airport 

(proposed).

GA Planning and development of airport facility. 

Richard Russel Airport ....... GA Extend runway; other infrastructure improvements. 

Wright Army Airfield ........... GA Conversion of airfield to joint use, level II airport; repair and upgrade runways, 

taxiways, apons, and facilities. 

Ankeny Regional Airport ..... IA Grading, drainage, paving, marking, lighting of south t-hanger apron area and 

of south t-hanger taxiway. 

Council Bluffs Municipal 

Airport.

IA Land acquisition for runway development for new runway 18/36 to meet airport reference code C–II standards. 

Eastern Iowa Airport ........... IA Rehabilitation of east t-hanger taxiway, west t-hanger taxiways, and general 

aviation apron. 

Fairfield Municipal Airport IA Grading and drainage for new runways and taxiway. 

Mason City Municipal Airport.IA Reconstruction of primary runway—17/35. 

Newton Municipal Airport ... IA Obstruction removal and new taxiway. 

Ottumwa Industrial Airport IA Partial parallel taxiway to runway end 31. 

72

Airport name State Project description 

Lewis University Airport ...... IL Pave new runway 1–19. 

South Suburban Airport 

(proposed).

IL Complete environmental impact statement. 

Gary/Chicago Airport .......... IN Bituminous overlay for rehabilitation of runway; expansion of general use 

apron. 

Forbes Field Airport ............ KS Rehabilitation of taxiway C. 

Kansas State University 

Airport.

KS Rehabilitate apon at training facility. 

Newton City/County Airport KS Replace aircraft rescue and fire fighting vehicle (ARFFV). 

Wichita Mid-Continent Airport.KS Construct new full-length parallel runway and connecting taxiways. 

Barkley Regional Airport ..... KY Property acquisition to lengthen the secondary runway by 1500 ft. 

Big Sandy Airport ............... KY Runway strengthening. 

Bowman Field ..................... KY Reconstruction of taxiway and apron; upgrade airfield visual pilot aids. 

Capitol City Airport—

Frankfort.

KY Runway and taxiway overlays; extensions; apron rehabilitation. 

Elizabethtown Airport 

(Addington Field).

KY Land acquisition for extension of runway 5; extension of parallel taxiway. 

Harlan County Airport ......... KY Runway safety area. 

Hawesville-Hancock County 

Airport.

KY Design and construct 4000-foot runway. 

Hazard Airport .................... KY Runway extension. 

Henderson City-County Airport.KY Relocation of taxiway. 

Lexington Blue Grass Field KY Expansion of air carrier ramp. 

London Airport .................... KY Runway overlay, taxiway. 

Louisville International Airport.KY Acquire properties surrounding airport and relocate residents. 

Madison County Airport ...... KY Runway safety area; runway extension; and taxiway. 

Madisonville Municipal Airport.KY Widen/extend runway. 

Marion/Crittendon County 

Airport.

KY Engineering for phase I development: excavate for runway extension/widening. 

Marshall Field—Scott 

County Airport.

KY Runway extension; taxiway and apron overlay. 

Middlesboro Airport ............ KY Taxiway and apron. 

Monticello Airport ............... KY Parallel taxiway. 

Mt. Sterling-Montgomery 

Airport.

KY Parallel taxiway and safety area. 

Pikeville Airport .................. KY Pavement overlay. 

Pine Knot Airport ................ KY Runway extension. 

Rowan County Airport ......... KY Master plan; environmental analysis; grade and drain for replacement airport. 

Somerset Airport ................. KY 400 ft runway extension and overlay., 

Stantion Field—Powell 

County Airport.

KY Fencing. 

Stuart Powell Field—Boyle 

County Airport.

KY Runway and taxiway overlays and fencing. 

West Liberty Airport ............ KY Fencing. 

Williamsburg/Whitley County Airport.KY Grade and pave for new airport. 

Baton Rouge Airport ........... LA Installation of apron drainage system; reconstruct taxiway M. 

Houma-Terrebonne Airport .. LA Runway upgrades. 

Lafayette Regional Airport .. LA Refurbish existing terminal and adjacent ramp, air cargo, and maintenance 

facility; non-revenue parking areas; commuter walkways; runway 11/29 subsidence reclamation. 

Louis Armstrong International Airport.LA Airfield safety improvements; terminal apron rehabilitation; new aircraft rescue/firefighting vehicle; rehabilitate runways 1/19 and 10/28. 

Monroe Regional Airport ..... LA Runway/taxiway lighting repair/upgrade. 

Slidell Municipal Airport ..... LA Reconstruction of airport taxiway. 

Cherry Capital Airport ........ MI New terminal. 

Chippewa County Airport .... MI New airport terminal. 

Detroit Metropolitan/Wayne 

County Airport.

MI Planned redevelopment. 

Oakland Internation Airport MI Acquisition of residences under noise mitigation program; sound attentuation 

of homes; screen wall to mitigate noise on north side of airport. 

Pellston Regional Airport .... MI Renovation of terminal. 

73

Airport name State Project description 

Romeo State Airport ........... MI Develop and expand runways; plan and develop navigational aids; plan and 

develop runway/taxiway lighting. 

Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.MN Deicing pad for runway 12R. 

Joplin Airport ...................... MO New terminal building. 

Kansas City International 

Airport.

MO Security upgrades. 

Kennett Memorial Airport ... MO Construct new runway—continuation of project. 

Lambert St. Louis International Airport.MO W–1W expansion project; noise abatement measures. 

Maryville Memorial Airport MO Expansion master plan. 

Springfield/Branson Airport MO Initiate design for new midfield terminal. 

Gulfport-Biloxi Regional Airport.MS Construction & relocation costs; acquisition of land for runway extension. 

Jackson International Airport.MS Terminal renovations and airfield improvements, including apron replacement 

and taxiway rehabilitation; security upgrades. 

Jackson Municipal Airport .. MS Terminal renovations and rehabilitation of air carrier apron and connecting 

taxiways. 

Helena Regional Airport ..... MT Remodeling of airport terminal; parking lots; entrance roads; increased security. 

Anson County Airport .......... NC Enhancement of facilities, equipment, and infrastructure. 

Burlington-Alamance Regional Airport.NC Paving and lighting of facility extension; runway/taxiway extension. 

Clinton-Sampson County 

Airport.

NC Airfield pavement rehabilitation. 

Concord Regional Airport ... NC Land acquisition, design & construction of 1500 foot runway extension. 

Currituck County Airport ..... NC Rehabilitate and overlay existing runway. 

Harnett County Airport ....... NC Runway extension—phase 2. 

Johnston County Airport ..... NC Wetland mitgiation and construction of extended RSA. 

Michael J. Smith Airport ..... NC Extend current runway to 5000 feet. 

Monroe Municipal Airport—

Union County.

NC Installation of gated system of secure fencing. 

Morganton-Lenoir Airport .... NC Partial parallel taxiway to runway 21; widen/overlay runway 3–21; partial parallel taxiway to runway 3. 

Rockingham County Airport NC Runway extension and strengthening. 

Stanly County Airport ......... NC Apron improvements; fuel farm relocation; security fencing; other improvements. 

Hickory Regional Airport ..... NC Infrastructure Improvements. 

Statesville Municipal Airport.NC Acquire land; design/build runway extension; complete instrument landing system. 

Warren Field Airport ........... NC Rehabilitate and overlay existing runway. 

Wilmington International 

Airport.

NC Repair and replace deteriorating underground drainage pipes; runway clearing. 

Bismarck Municipal Airport ND Construct new terminal; expand parking. 

Grand Forks International 

Airport.

ND Planning, design, and site preparation for new general aviation runway and 

parallel taxiway. 

Central Nebraska Regional 

Airport.

NE Runway reconstruction; reconstruction of 4 taxiways; rehabilitation of airport 

terminal. 

Newark International Airport NJ Engineering studies and EIS for installation of offset localizer directional aid 

with glide slope for runway 4L. 

Sun Juan Pueblo Airport ..... NM Construction and improvements to existing facilities. 

McCarran International Airport.NV Two remote transmitter/receiver (RTR) sites. 

North Las Vegas Airport ..... NV Installation of runway position hold lights at 27 intersecting taxiways and runways. 

Albany International Airport NY Extension of primary runway. 

Buffalo Niagara International Airport.NY Design and construction of extension to runway 14/32; runway 5/23 extension/

rehab; security improvements. 

Greater Rochester International Airport—multiple projects.

NY Terminal improvements; runway 10/28 safety area improvements; security improvements; east apron aircraft parking expansion. 

Long Island Islip Airport .... NY Security enhancements. 

Hancock International Airport.NY Equipment infrastructure improvements. 

Niagara Falls International 

Airport.

NY Rehabilitate apron connecting taxiway D with condor hangars; access improvements; demolition of former Bell Helicopter production hanger. 

74

Airport name State Project description 

Plattsburgh International 

Airport.

NY Construction of passenger terminal; hanger rehabilitation. 

Akron-Canton Regional Airport.OH Design and construction of terminal expansion. 

Cincinnati Municipal Airport-Lunken Field.OH Surfacing & drainage; security needs: additional fencing/access control/surveillance. 

Cleveland Hopkins International Airport.OH Installation of navaids; replacement runway lighting; noise mitigation program; 

security upgrades. 

Port Columbus International 

Airport.

OH Various improvements. 

Rickenbacker International 

Airport.

OH Rehabilitation and expansion of air cargo aircraft parking; installation of ILS 

on inside runway. 

Toledo Express Airport ........ OH Construction of new public aircraft parking apron; security improvements. 

Union County Airport .......... OH Runway extension; taxiway relocation. 

Davis Field Airport .............. OK Rehabilitate runway 13–31. 

Max Westheimer Airport ..... OK Security requirements. 

Stillwater Airport ................ OK Runway extension—paving and completion of project. 

Jefferson County Airport ..... OR New flight services building. 

Roberts Field/Redmond Airport.OR Security improvements. 

Bradford Regional .............. PA Various improvements. 

Connellsville Airport ........... PA Runway extension; benefit-cost analysis; right of way acquisition; utility/construction drawings; construction of structure span for local road; relocation 

of gas lines. 

Dubois-Jefferson County 

Airport.

PA Various improvements. 

Jersey Shore Airport ............ PA Various improvements. 

Jimmy Stewart Airport ........ PA Construct new, longer runway; Phase II of project. 

Philadelphia International 

Airport.

PA Reconstruct terminal D–E apron; extend runway safety area for runway 9R; increase airfield capacity; security enhancements. 

Punxsutawney Airport ......... PA Various improvements. 

Venango Regional Airport ... PA Various improvements. 

Fairfield County Airport ...... SC Extend runway 500 feet. 

Spartanburg Downtown Airport.SC Extension of runway 5/23 to 5500 ft; construct required safety area. 

Campbell County Airport .... SD Lengthen and reconstruct existing 2300 foot runway. 

Chan Gurney Airport ........... SD Reconstruction of runway; new high intensity lighting system. 

Highmore Municipal Airport SD Land acquisition; right of way; design. 

Pierre Regional Airport ....... SD Reconstruction of runway; new high intensity lighting system. 

Winner Airport—Bob Wiley 

Field.

SD Reconstruction of runway; taxiway; paving, new medium intensity lighting system. 

Chattanooga Airport ........... TN Construct west airfield access road for aircraft hangers. 

Nashville International ....... TN Security enhancement. 

Upper Cumberland Regional 

Airport.

TN Extend airport runway 7000 ft; provide 1000 ft full parallel taxiway extension; 

acquire 75 acres of land. 

Abilene Regional Airport ..... TX Air carrier ramp improvements. 

Arlington Municipal Airport TX Acquisition of 48.81 acres of land (right of way) for airport extension. 

Del Rio International Airport TX Land acquisition for runway extension and improvements. 

Denton Municipal Airport ... TX Realignment of taxiway; runway extension; terminal expansion; new equipment 

for new tower. 

Draughton-Miller Regional 

Airport.

TX Extend runway 15/33 from 6301 to 7000 ft; improve parallel taxiway; install 

new elextrical vault; upgrade lighting. 

Fort Worth Alliance Airport TX Extension of 2 runways. 

Gainesville Municipal Airport.TX Extend & mark runway 71–35; extend parallel taxiway. 

McKinney Municipal Airport TX New taxiway along existing runway. 

Robert Gray Army Airfield—

Kileen Airport.

TX Expansion of airport; planning; design; construction. 

San Antonio International 

Airport.

TX Various improvements. 

Valley International Airport TX Acquire 115 acres for runway protection zones; reconstruct/relocate 1.4 miles 

of road. 

St George Airport replacement (replacement).UT Land acquisition. 

Ogden Hinkley Airport ......... UT Runway reconstruction. 

Blue Ridge Airport .............. VA Construction of facility for the Martinsville Composite Squadron of the Civil Air 

Patrol. 

75

Airport name State Project description 

Breaks Interstate Regional 

Airport.

VA Land acquisition; design; engineering for new airport to serve Buchanan and 

Dickerson Counties. 

Charlottsville-Albermarle 

Airport.

VA Rehabilitate general aviation apron pavement; runway extension; construct air 

carrier access road. 

Franklin County Airport ...... VA Airport study. 

Manassas Airport ............... VA Various improvements. 

Twin County Airport ............ VA Rehabilitate and expand runway and apron. 

Washington Dulles International Airport.

VA Replace sections of runways, taxiways, taxi lanes, and apron areas; construct 

additional aircraft parking apron at air cargo building 6 with appropriate 

access taxiways; construct fillet widening at intersection of taxiway Y and 

high speed exit taxiway Y–7. 

Henry E. Rohlsen Airport .... VI Terminal modifications; runway extension. 

Austin Straubel International Airport.WI Runway intersection reconstruction. 

Central Wisconsin Airport ... WI Reconstruct primary air carrier runway and parallel taxiway. 

General Mitchell International Airport.WI Extend outer taxiway around concourse C. 

LaCrosse Municipal Airport WI Reconstruct parallel taxiway; upgrade electrical systems; reconstruct east 

apron. 

Jackson County Airport ....... WV Various improvements. 

Upshur County Airport ........ WV Runway Extension; land purchase; sewer and water infrastructure improvements. 

ADMINISTRATION

The bill provides that, within the overall obligation limitation, $62,820,000 is available for administration of the airports program. 

Prior to fiscal year 2001, these expenses were included in the 

FAA’s operating budget. This is a reduction of $5,437,000 below the budget estimate but an increase of $5,770,000 (10.1 percent) above 

the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. Reductions from the budget estimate are shown in the table below, and are necessary to preserve 

as many resources as possible for critical grants to the nation’s airports. Under the Administration’s proposal, only 13 percent of the $100,000,000 increase in the obligation limitation for fiscal year 

2003 would be used for grants at the nation’s airports. The majority of funding would instead have been used for in-house administrative expenses, research, and the essential air service program. 

Funding in the bill is sufficient to support the requested 535 

staffyears, which is an increase of 34 staffyears (6.7 percent) above 

the current fiscal year.

Budget

estimate 

Committee

recommended 

CSRS/FEHBP accruals .............................................................................................................. $3,637,000 ........................

Advisory circular contract ........................................................................................................ 1,600,000 $800,000

E-government data transfer .................................................................................................... 1,000,000 ........................

Airport financial reporting system .......................................................................................... 500,000 250,000

CSRS/FEHBP accruals.—The reduction of $3,637,000 is consistent with reductions taken elsewhere in the bill, and is explained in an earlier section of this report. 

Airport technology research.—The Committee recommends no 

funding under the limitation on obligations, as such funding is not 

authorized from the AIP program. However, funding of $7,500,000 

is recommended under ‘‘Facilities and equipment, advanced technology development and prototyping’’. This is essentially the same 

level as provided for fiscal year 2002. The budget estimate included 

$16,429,000 for this activity. 

76

Essential air service.—The Committee does not approve the Administration’s request to allow the use of AIP funds to support the 

essential air service (EAS) program. Sufficient appropriations are 

included elsewhere in this bill to support the EAS program, as explained in an earlier section of this report. EAS subsidies are not 

an authorized use of AIP funding, and there is no logical connection between these two programs that would justify the diversion 

of AIP funding for this purpose. The merits of funding the EAS 

program should be evaluated on their own. While the Committee 

is well aware of the budgetary constraints facing the nation, forcing 

one program to subsume earmarks for unrelated programs, just to 

give the appearance of saving money, is not sound budgetary policy. Rather, the Administration should be making tough budget decisions based upon a review of each program on its merits. While 

the Committee is aware that costs for EAS service have risen since 

the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Administration 

should address those costs directly, rather than earmark funds 

from unrelated existing programs. 

Security and Safety Training.—Educating and training employees at airports holds enormous potential in reducing security risks 

and enhancing the safety of airport operations. Security awareness 

programs, for example, were mandated by Public Law 101–71 for 

airport employees, ground crews, gate, ticket and curbside agents 

of air carriers and other individuals employed at airports to enhance airport security. In addition, the FAA has repeatedly highlighted the promise of training—particularly interactive training—

in reducing runway incursions, an urgent safety problem the Committee has long sought to address. In light of these examples, and 

given the importance of complementing other measures aimed at 

addressing safety and security with efforts to address human factors, the committee directs the FAA to consider grant requests for 

equipment associated with security and safety training among the 

highest priority for AIP discretionary funding. 

BILL LANGUAGE

Runway incursion prevention systems and devices.—Consistent 

with the provisions of Public Law 106–181 and the DOT and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002, the bill allows funds 

under this limitation to be used for airports to procure and install 

runway incursion prevention systems and devices. Because of the 

urgent safety problem related to runway incursions, the FAA is directed to consider such grant requests among the highest priorities 

for discretionary funding. 

SMALL COMMUNITY AIR SERVICE DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 1 .......................................................... $20,000,000

Budget Request, fiscal year 2003 .........................................................

Recommended in the bill ....................................................................... 20,000,000

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ..............................................

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............................................ +20,000,000 1Funded under ‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ program.

The Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program 

was authorized in section 203 of Public Law 106–181. The program, authorized at $27,5000,000 for fiscal year 2003, is designed 

77

to stimulate new or expanded air service at underutilized airports 

in small and rural communities throughout the United States. 

Communities eligible for service include those which have insufficient air carrier service, unreasonably high air fares, or which have 

an airport no larger than a small hub. The Committee recommends 

an appropriation of $20,000,000, from the general fund, to continue 

this program in fiscal year 2003. This is the same amount as enacted for fiscal year 2002. No funding was requested in the budget 

estimate. 

The following communities received grants under this program in 

fiscal year 2002. Funds provided in this bill are available to continue activities in these locations or provide service to new locations during fiscal year 2003.

King Cover, AK 

Sand Point, AK 

Akutan, AK 

Cold Bay, AK 

False Pass, AK 

Nelson Lagoon, AK 

Mobile, AL 

Fort Smith, AR 

Lake Havasu City, AZ 

Santa Maria, CA 

Lamar, CO 

Daytona Beach, FL 

Augusta, GA/Aiken, SC 

Mason City, IA 

Hailey, ID 

Marion, IL 

Fort Wayne, IN 

Manhattan, KS 

Paducah, KY 

Somerset, KY 

Lake Charles, LA 

Presque Isle, ME 

Houghton and Pellston, MI 

Brainerd and St Cloud, MN 

Cape Girardeau, MO 

Meridian, MS 

Asheville, NC 

Bismarck, ND 

Scottsbluff, NE 

Taos/Ruidoso, NM 

Binghamton, NY 

Akron/Canton, OH 

Baker City, OR 

Reading, PA 

Rapid City, SD 

Bristol/Kingsport/Johnson City, TN 

Abilene, TX 

Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX 

Moab, UT 

Lynchburg, VA 

Bellingham, WA 

Pasco, WA 

Rhinelander, WI 

Charleston,W V 

Casper and Gillette, WY 

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides financial 

assistance to the states to construct and improve roads and highways, and provides technical assistance to other agencies and organizations involved in road building activities. Title 23 and other 

supporting legislation provide authority for the various activities of 

the Federal Highway Administration. Funding is provided by contract authority, with program levels established by annual limitations on obligations in Appropriations Acts. 

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) 

amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two additional 

discretionary spending categories, one of which is the highway category. This category is comprised of all federal-aid highways funding, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s motor carrier safety funding, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) highway safety grants funding and NHTSA highway safety research and development funding. 

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2003 PROGRAM

TEA–21 caps the highway category obligations at 

$28,233,000,000 in fiscal year 2003 and Federal-aid obligations at 

78

$23,284,143,000. If highway account receipts exceed levels specified 

in TEA–21, automatic adjustments are made to increase or decrease obligations and outlays for the highway category accordingly. The increases and decreases associated with highway account receipts are called revenue aligned budget authority (RABA). 

Under TEA–21, if appropriations action forces highway obligations 

to exceed this obligation level specified in TEA–21 as adjusted by 

RABA, the resulting difference in outlays is charged to the non-defense discretionary spending category. 

REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY

In fiscal year 2003, the provisions of TEA–21 would require a reduction of $4,369,000,000 in federal-aid highway funding due to 

RABA. The guaranteed level for federal-aid highways would be reduced to $23,284,143,000, representing a reduction of almost 16 

percent from the base funding level in TEA–21, and a total reduction of 27 percent from the $31,799,104,000 provided in FY 2002. 

Section 1402 of the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations 

bill (Public Law 107–206) restores the fiscal year 2003 highway 

funding reduction that would have been caused by the RABA adjustment and raises the highway guarantee by $4,369,000,000. 

Therefore, the Committee’s recommendation exceeds the guaranteed level contemplated in TEA–21 by $4,369,000,000. However, because the provision increases the highway category specifically, the 

additional highway funding does not come at the expense of other 

discretionary programs. The following table summarizes the program levels within the Federal Highway Administration for fiscal 

year 2002 enacted, the fiscal year 2003 budget request and the 

Committee’s recommendation:

Program Fisal year 2002

enacted 

Fiscal year 2003

request 

Recommended in the 

bill 

Federal-aid highways .......................................................... 1 $27,280,000,000 $27,628,536,000 $27,653,143,000 

Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) ......................... 4,519,104,000 ¥4,369,000,000 0 

Adjustment .......................................................................... ................................ ¥54,749,000 ................................

Subtotal ................................................................. 31,799,104,000 23,204,787,000 27,653,143,000

Exempt obligations ............................................................. 2 1,274,176,000 892,767,000 892,767,000

Subtotal ................................................................. 33,073,280,000 24,097,554,000 28,545,910,000

Appalachian Development Highway System ....................... 200,000,000 ................................ 100,000,000

Miscellaneous appropriations ............................................. 3 4 248,300,000 ................................ ................................

Total ....................................................................... 33,521,580,000 24,097,544,000 28,645,910,000 

1 Includes $100,000,000 above the obligation limitation above that guaranteed by TEA–21. 2 Reflects $75,000,000 emergency relief (ER) supplemental funding provided by P.L. 107–117. 3 Provided by section 330 of P.L. 107–87. 4 Reflects $100,000,000 supplemental funding provided by P.L. 107–117. 

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, fiscal year 2003 1 ............................................................. ($311,000,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ....................................................... (317,732,000) 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... (370,042,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Limitation, fiscal year 2002 ........................................................ (+59,042,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................ (+52,310,000) 1Does not reflect a reduction of $841,000 pursuant to section 349 of Public Law 107–87 as amended by 

section 1106 of P.L. 107–117. 

79

This limitation controls spending for the salaries and expenses of 

the Federal Highway Administration required to conduct and administer the federal-aid highways programs and most other federal 

highway programs. In the past, this limitation included a number 

of contract programs, such as highway research, development and 

technology; however, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century (TEA–21) created a separate limitation for transportation 

research. Accordingly, in fiscal year 2003, costs related to highway 

research, development and technology are included under a separate limitation. 

The Committee recommends a limitation of $370,042,000. This 

level is sufficient to fund 2,422 FTEs. The recommended level assumes the following adjustments to the budget request:

Reduce funding for employee development ...................................... ¥$1,606,000 

Increase funding for environmental streamlining ........................... +7,000,000 

Southern border truck inspection facilities ...................................... +47,000,000 

Deny FECA administrative costs ...................................................... ¥$84,300

Employee development.—The Committee has reduced the request for workforce development activities by $1,606,000. The Committee 

has provided $2,500,000, the same level as provided in fiscal year 

2001. 

Environmental streamlining.—The budget request included a total of $6,000,000 for environmental streamlining initiatives, funded from the administrative balances set-aside. The Committee recommendation includes a total of $7,000,000 in fiscal year 2003 for 

environmental streamlining initiatives within the limitation on administrative expenses. The Committee directs FHWA to provide 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report, not 

later than March 1, 2003, summarizing FHWA’s streamlining efforts. The report should include specific examples of FHWA activities that have helped streamline the environmental process. 

The Committee is extremely disconcerted with the unprecedented 

actions the Department took with regard to the report on FHWA’s 

streamlining efforts due to the Committee January 2, 2002. The report was delivered to the Committee on the evening before FHWA 

was to testify before the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation. Without prior notice or approval, the Department violated the standard practice in place for many years, and not only 

attached the report to testimony delivered to the Committee for 

public dissemination, but also widely distributed the report to other 

Committees and to the press. Although directed by Congress specifically for the use of this Committee, members of the Appropriations Committee had no opportunity to read the report before mass 

distribution to the public. The Committee strongly recommends the 

Department confer with the Committee and adopt procedures for 

report distribution similar to the standards in place and followed 

before February 28, 2002. In addition, the Committee directs the 

Department to refrain from attaching miscellaneous documents, including reports, to Congressional testimony without prior consultation with the Committee. 

Truck safety inspection facilities.—The Committee recommendation provides $47,000,000 from the limitation on administrative expenses for the construction of permanent truck safety inspection facilities along the U.S./Mexico border. The budget request included 

this funding proposal from within the national corridor planning 

80

and development program. In its fiscal year 2002 budget request, 

the Administration’s stated goal was to receive a total of $160,000,000 over three years to contribute towards funding of 

state border inspection facilities at 23 sites. In 2002, the Committee provided $66,000,000 for this effort. 

FECA administrative costs.—The Committee has reduced funding by $84,300 from the budget request for workers compensation 

administrative costs as explained in an earlier section of this report.

LIMITATION ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

Limitation, fiscal year 2002 1 ......................................................... ................................ Budget request, fiscal year 2003 1 ................................................. ................................ Recommended in the bill ............................................................... ($462,500,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Limitation, fiscal year 2002 .................................................... (+462,500,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............................................ (+462,500,000) 1Resources available in fiscal year 2002 and requested in fiscal year 2003 are assumed within the federalaid obligation limitation in the budget request for fiscal year 2003. 

This limitation controls spending for the transportation research 

and technology contract programs of the Federal Highway Administration. It includes a number of contract programs including intelligent transportation systems, surface transportation research, 

technology deployment, training and education, and university 

transportation research. In the past, funding under this limitation 

was provided in part from the limitation on general operating expenses and from contract authority provided in permanent law. 

The recommendation includes an obligation limitation for transportation research of $462,500,000. This limitation is consistent with 

the provisions of TEA–21 and mirrors the House-passed fiscal year 

2002 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The bill provides $462,500,000 in fiscal year 2003 for the following transportation research programs:

Surface transportation research ........................................................... $103,000,000 

Technology deployment program .......................................................... 50,000,000 

Training and education ......................................................................... 20,000,000 

Bureau of transportation statistics ...................................................... 31,000,000 

ITS standards, research, operational tests and development ............ 110,000,000 

ITS deployment ...................................................................................... 122,000,000 

University transportation research ...................................................... 26,500,000 

Total ............................................................................................. $462,500,000

HIGHWAY RESEARCH

In response to the Committee’s concern the U.S. General Accounting Office completed a review of FHWA’s research program in 

May 2002. The report included recommendations to help ensure 

that FHWA’s research agenda and approach to evaluation result in 

identification of research with the highest value to the surface 

transportation community. The Committee directs FHWA to: (1) 

develop a systematic approach for obtaining input from external 

stakeholders in determining the research and technology program’s 

agendas; (2) develop a systematic process that incorporates peer review or other best practices in use at federal agencies that conduct 

research; (3) and develop specific plans for implementing these recommendations, including time frames and cost estimates. 

81

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

Within the funds provided for highway research and development 

under the surface transportation research program, the Committee 

recommends the following:

Environment, planning, and real estate .............................................. $17,000,000

Research and technology program support ......................................... 8,000,000

International research ........................................................................... 500,000

Structures ............................................................................................... 13,500,000

Safety ...................................................................................................... 12,000,000

Operations .............................................................................................. 12,500,000

Asset management ................................................................................ 3,000,000

Pavements research ............................................................................... 15,500,000

Policy research ....................................................................................... 9,000,000

Long-term pavement project ................................................................. 10,000,000

Advanced research ................................................................................. 1,000,000

R&T strategic planning/performance measures .................................. 1,000,000

Total ............................................................................................. $103,000,000

Environment, planning, and real estate research.—The environment research and technology program develops improved tools for 

assessing highway impacts on the environment; techniques for the 

avoidance, detection, and mitigation of those impacts and for the 

enhancement of the environment; and expertise on environmental 

concerns within FHWA and state and local transportation agencies. 

The planning and real estate research and technology program advances cost effective methods to evaluate transportation strategies 

and investments; develops and disseminates improved planning 

methods; develops more effective planning and data collection techniques for intermodal passenger and freight planning and programming; improves financial planning tools for use in developing transportation plans and programs; evaluates the characteristics of the 

National Highway System; and develops improved analytical tools 

to support metropolitan and statewide planning and for information and data sharing with state and local governments. The Committee has provided $17,000,000. 

Research and technology program support.—The Committee has 

provided $8,000,000. Funds provided under this category support a 

variety of programs, including the Transportation Research Board 

core program; the small business innovative research program; and 

marketing, publication and communication activities. 

International research.—The Committee has provided $500,000, 

the level authorized under TEA–21, for international research activities. FHWA is directed to consult the Committee before any 

international agreements are consummated that are likely to require financial support. 

Structures.—The structures research and technology program develops technologies, advanced materials and methods to efficiently 

maintain and renew the aging transportation infrastructure, improve existing infrastructure performance, and enable efficient infrastructure response and quick recovery after major disasters. The 

committee has provided $13,500,000 for structures research. Funds 

provided will help FHWA make progress towards its performance 

goal to reduce deficiencies on NHS bridges from 21.5 percent in 

2000 to 21 percent in 2003, as well as reduce deficiencies on all 

bridges. This funding will ensure continued progress on high performance materials and engineering applications to efficiently design, repair, rehabilitate, and retrofit bridges. Within the funds 

82

provided, FHWA shall provide $1,000,000 for the deployment of 

lithium technologies to prevent and mitigate alkali silica reactivity. 

The Committee notes that funding has been provided to the FHWA 

for several years, yet little progress has been made in the deployment of these promising technologies. Within the funds provided, 

the FHWA shall provide $1,000,000 for the New York City Bridges 

Corrosion Monitoring Project. 

Safety.—The safety research and technology program develops 

engineering practices, analysis tools, equipment, roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public information that will significantly contribute to the reduction of highway fatalities and injuries. The Committee has provided $12,000,000 for safety research 

programs. Within the funds provided, the Committee directs the 

FHWA to provide $600,000 to the University of Florida’s Seniors 

Institute for Transportation and Communications, and $1,000,000 

to the National Transportation Research Center, University of Tennessee for heavy vehicle research. 

Operations and asset management.—The Committee has pro- vided $15,500,000 for operations research and asset management. 

The highway operations research program is designed to develop, 

deliver, and deploy advanced technologies and administrative 

methods to provide pavement and bridge durability, and to reduce 

construction and maintenance-related user delays. Funds provided 

under this category support a variety of research projects seeking 

to improve highway operations, including work to improve the 

manual on uniform traffic control devices, work zone operations, 

technologies that facilitate operational responses to changes in 

weather conditions, and freight management operations. Within 

the funds provided, the Committee directs the FHWA to provide 

$550,000 to the Southern Rural Transportation Center and 

$400,000 to the Orangeburg County Rural Transit Demonstration 

project at South Carolina State University. 

The Committee has not included any funds for statistical analysis of the National Quality Initiative under any FHWA research 

program. Such analysis shall be performed by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 

Pavements research.—The pavement research and technology 

program identifies engineering practices, analytic tools, equipment, 

roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public information 

that will significantly contribute to the reduction of highway fatalities and injuries. Activities include work on asphalt, Portland cement concrete pavements, and recycled materials. The Committee 

has provided $15,500,000 for pavement research. Pavement research amounts, along with the $10,000,000 provided for long-term 

pavement performance, will allow FHWA to undertake research 

projects to improve the nation’s infrastructure. Within the funds 

provided, the Committee directs the FHWA to provide $1,000,000 

to the Center for Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Technology 

in Idaho, $500,000 to the Institute for Aggregates Research at 

Michigan Technological University, and $1,000,000 to the test track 

and hot mixed asphalt research at Auburn University. 

Policy research.—The policy research and technology program 

supports FHWA policy analysis and development, strategic planning, and technology development through research in data collection, management and dissemination; highway financing, investVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
83

ment analysis, and performance measurement; and enhancement of 

highway program contributions to economic productivity, efficiency, 

and other national goals. The Committee has provided $9,000,000 

for policy research. Within the funds provided, the Committee directs the FHWA to provide $2,000,000 to the University of Kentucky’s Academy for Community Transportation Innovation for 

transportation research on integrating public involvement technology and environmental issues in the transportation planning 

process. 

ITS STANDARDS, RESEARCH, OPERATIONAL TESTS AND

DEVELOPMENT

The Committee recommends the $110,000,000 provided in TEA– 21 for ITS research be allocated in the following manner:

Research and development ................................................................... $48,680,000 

Operational tests ................................................................................... 12,930,000 

Evaluation .............................................................................................. 7,750,000 

Architecture and standards .................................................................. 15,290,000 

Integration .............................................................................................. 11,350,000 

Program support .................................................................................... 9,000,000

Commercial vehicle operations (CVO) research.—The Committee’s 

allowance includes $6,800,000 for commercial vehicle operations research. The funds will be used to continue to develop and test advanced technology for roadside identification. This technology is 

needed to identify commercial carriers and vehicles without transponders in advance of their approach to an inspection site. This 

technology will ensure that maximum use of the SAFER, ASPEN, 

Mailbox data system, PIQ, PRISM target file, and the ISS2 systems is facilitated. Advancement of technology to promote the 

transfer of information from NLETS to MCSAP officers, including 

improved communications between the NLETS bridge and the 

PRISM target file and other information systems, should also be 

supported with the additional funds provided. 

ITS DEPLOYMENT

It is the intent of the Committee that the following projects contribute to the integration and interoperability of intelligent transportation systems in metropolitan and rural areas as provided 

under section 5208 of TEA–21 and promote deployment of the commercial vehicle intelligent transportation system infrastructure as 

provided under section 5209 of TEA–21. These projects shall conform to the requirements set forth in these sections, including the 

project selection criteria contained in section 5208(b) and the priority areas outlined in section 5209(c), respectively. Projects selected for funding shall use all applicable, published ITS standards. 

This requirement may be waived if the Secretary determines that 

the use of a published ITS standard would be counterproductive to 

achievement of the program objectives. Funding for ITS deployment activities is as follows:

Project Amount 

Advanced Traffic Analysis Center, North Dakota State University $1,000,000

Alameda-Contra Costa transit district (SatCom), California ............. 1,000,000

American Tobacco Trail Project, Wake County, North Carolina ....... 500,000

ATMS/ATIS Hutchinson River Parkway, New York .......................... 2,000,000

Automated Vehicle Location (AVL) and Mobile Data Terminals—

Palm Tran—Palm Beach Florida ...................................................... 1,000,000

84

Project Amount 

Bay County Area Wide Traffic Signal System, Florida ...................... 1,000,000

CalTrain train tracking information system (SamTrans), San 

Mateo County, California .................................................................. 500,000

Capital District Transportation Authority, customer information 

ITS project, New York ....................................................................... 800,000

Chapel Hill Transit, North Carolina, real time passenger information system and vehicle location system .......................................... 1,000,000

Chattanooga, Tennessee CARTA ITS .................................................. 4,400,000

Cicero Avenue travel information system, Illinois .............................. 500,000

City of Boston intelligent transportation system, Massachusetts ..... 1,000,000

City of Alexandria, Virginia, intelligent transportation system (Alexandria ITS—King/Braddock/Quaker) ............................................ 750,000

City of Austin, Texas ITS Deployment Program, Texas ..................... 500,000

City of Inglewood, California intelligent transportation system deployment project ................................................................................. 500,000

Concord Parkway Traffic Signals System Integration—Concord, 

North Carolina ................................................................................... 1,400,000

Continental 1 ......................................................................................... 1,500,000

DelDOT Integrated Transportation Management System—DelTrac, 

Statewide Transit Passenger Info System ....................................... 1,000,000

Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) camera deployment and integration 

program, Monroe County, New York ................................................ 1,000,000

Elkhorn Boulevard Project, Sacramento, California ........................... 350,000

Emergency Vehicle Access Program, Antrim, Pennsylvania .............. 60,000

Emergency Vehicle Optical Pre-Emption, Town of Islip, New York 750,000

Fog Detection Improvement and Traffic Monitoring, Rural Mountain Region, North Carolina .............................................................. 200,000

Gettysburg Borough Signal Coordination and Upgrade—Signalization; Adams County, Pennsylvania ................................................... 1,950,000

HART Bus Tracking and Communication, Florida ............................. 4,000,000

Houma, Louisiana .................................................................................. 1,000,000

Hunt County, Texas .............................................................................. 1,000,000

I–90 Truck Wind Warning System—Columbia River, Washington .. 100,000

Idaho Commercial Vehicle Systems and Networks (CVISN)—Level 

1 Completion ....................................................................................... 1,000,000

Image-based toll collection system project, California ........................ 1,000,000

Intelligent transportation system statewide, Illinois .......................... 1,000,000

Intelligent transportation, ADART phase IV implementation, Corpus Christi, Texas .............................................................................. 500,000

Intermodal ITS center, Orleans Parish, Louisiana ............................. 500,000

Interstate 95/Interstate 40 travel information improvements, Johnston County, North Carolina ............................................................. 500,000

Law Enforcement Communications for Security and Biometrics, 

Iowa ..................................................................................................... 3,500,000

Baton Rouge, Louisiana ........................................................................ 1,000,000

Johnson County Transit, Kansas, automatic vehicle locator ............. 500,000

Kansas City Scout Advanced Traffic Management System (along I–

635), Kansas ....................................................................................... 1,500,000

Kansas City, Kansas Smart Port (International trade processing 

center) ................................................................................................. 1,500,000

Libertyville Traffic Management Center, Illinois ............................... 1,000,000

Macomb County ITS Integration, Michigan ........................................ 500,000

Maricopa County, AZTech integrated emergency and transportation communication network, Arizona .......................................... 1,500,000

Metrolina Traffic Management Center Communication, North 

Carolina .............................................................................................. 1,000,000

MetroLink Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) passenger information delivery system project .............................................................. 500,000

Minnesota Guidestar ............................................................................. 12,000,000

Montachusett Area Regional Transit (MART) advanced vehicle location system, Massachusetts ........................................................... 200,000

Monterey-Salinas Transit, intelligent transportation system, California ................................................................................................... 750,000

Montgomery County, Maryland Advanced Transportation Management System (ATMS) ......................................................................... 1,550,000

Nebraska ITS ......................................................................................... 2,000,000

New Bedford, Massachusetts intelligent transportation information 

center ................................................................................................... 1,000,000

85

Project Amount 

New York Metropolitan Area enhanced operations, New York ......... 1,000,000

North Carolina Division of Motor Vehicles, Hillsborough weigh station Orange County, North Carolina ................................................ 1,000,000

Oakland County Smart Corridor and Emergency Routing System, 

Michigan ............................................................................................. 4,800,000

Oklahoma Department of Transportation, intelligent transportation 

systems project ................................................................................... 1,000,000

Ports of Long Beach/Los Angeles Advanced Transportation Management & Information Systems ...................................................... 1,000,000

Positive Protection Railroad/grade Crossing System Project, Alabama .................................................................................................... 2,000,000

Project Hoosier SAFE-T, Indiana ......................................................... 1,000,000

Richmond Highway intelligent transportation system project, Virginia ..................................................................................................... 400,000

Round Rock, Texas, Williamson County, Communications Integration ...................................................................................................... 500,000

Rural Highway Information System, Kentucky .................................. 6,000,000

Sacramento Area Council of Governments, Sacramento region intelligent transportation system projects, California ........................ 1,000,000

Salem, New Hampshire ITS ................................................................. 900,000

San Diego Joint Transportation Operations Center, California ........ 2,000,000

San Francisco, Muni, automatic vehicle location/GPS, California .... 1,000,000

Santa Teresa Border Tech Center, New Mexico State University .... 1,000,000

SD, ND, MN, IN Maintenance Decision Support System .................. 850,000

Shreveport ITS, Louisiana .................................................................... 1,500,000

Sierra Madre Villa Intermodal Transportation Center, California ... 1,000,000

South Carolina DOT inroads intelligent transportation system, 

statewide ............................................................................................. 3,000,000

South Com Regional Dispatch Trauma Center, Matteson, Olympia 

Fields, and Richton Park, Illinois ..................................................... 200,000

Springfield Regional ITS, Missouri ...................................................... 1,500,000

SR 316/SR 81 Intersection Improvements—Barrow and Oconee 

counties, Georgia ................................................................................ 1,600,000

State of Wisconsin, deployment of commercial vehicle information 

system and networks, level one capability ....................................... 500,000

State of Wisconsin, upgrade of state patrol’s data communications 

network ............................................................................................... 2,000,000

Statewide Transportation Operations Center, Kentucky ................... 1,000,000

Surveillance Camera and Transportation Management Center, Des 

Moines, Iowa ....................................................................................... 1,000,000

Texas Transportation Institute’s Monitoring and Emergency Notification for the Texas Medical Center campus, Texas ....................... 350,000

The Rapid, Grand Rapids, Michigan Public Transportation .............. 1,000,000

Traffic Corridor Communications System, Lake County, Illinois ...... 2,000,000

TRANSCOM regional architecture and TRANSMIT and IRVN 

projects, New Jersey .......................................................................... 500,000

Tri-Cities Advanced Traffic Management System, Washington ........ 500,000

UALR Intelligent transportation system, Little Rock, Arkansas ...... 500,000

UK 1–75 Research, Kentucky ............................................................... 1,640,000

University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for Injury Sciences, 

Alabama .............................................................................................. 3,250,000

US–395 Columbia River Bridge Traffic Operations and Traveler Information System, Washington ......................................................... 250,000

Utah’s ITS (CommuterLink) ................................................................. 1,000,000

Vallejo Baylink Ferry Intermodal Center, California ......................... 500,000

Wayne County Road Information Management System (RIMS), 

Wayne County, Michigan .................................................................. 2,500,000

Witchita ITS (ITS Traffic/Emergency Operations Center and transit ITS) ................................................................................................ 4,000,000

Joint Program Office.—In the early 1990s, the Appropriations 

Committees expressed strong support for the formulation of a Joint 

Program Office (JPO) within the DOT to oversee the federal role 

in the national Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) effort. This 

office, which is located within the Federal Highway Administration, 

now provides overall program direction and budget coordination 

among the multiple DOT offices conducting ITS activities. The 

86

Committee believes the JPO has sucessfully managed the ITS program. For example, the JPO’s close association with FHWA’s research, headquarters staff, and regional offices has ensured a unified approach to providing training, implementation and testing of 

standards, and adherence to a national systems architecture. The 

Committee maintains that the JPO’s positive working relationship 

with the FMCSA and FTA has facilitated progress in advancement 

of technologies and the deployment of systems. 

The appropriation for ITS provided herein is predicated on the 

continuation of the JPO conducting the functions identified previously. Maximum efficiencies are most likely to be obtained by retaining the current administrative structure of the JPO within the 

FHWA with a reporting function to the Deputy Secretary. If there 

is any change in the administrative structure or responsibilities of 

the JPO, the Secretary is directed to inform the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations and to justify in detail such 

changes. 

BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS

Under the FHWA appropriation, the accompanying bill provides 

$31,000,000 for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), the 

amount authorized in TEA–21. The Committee does not provide additional amounts requested from the airport and airway trust fund. 

The Committee notes that BTS has undergone significant increases 

in staffing since 1993, the year BTS was established. In fiscal year 

1993, on-board positions totaled 5, in 2001 total staff stood at 101, 

and BTS estimates on-board staff to total 146 by the end of 2002. 

In fiscal year 2003, BTS requests a level of 157 full time position 

(FTP). The Committee is concerned about these staff increases, 

particularly when the staffing level has exceeded the Administration’s request to Congress. Therefore, the Committee limits BTS 

full time positions to 146 or, if lower, the number of on-board positions upon enactment of this bill. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract authorization Limitation on obligations 

Limitation, fiscal year 2002 ................... $30,000,000,000 ($31,799,104,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 20031 .......... 29,000,000,000 (32,204,787,000) 

Recommended in the bill ........................ 29,000,000,000 (27,653,143,000) 

Bill compared with:.

Limitation, fiscal year 2002 ............ ¥1,000,000,000 (¥4,145,961,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 .... .................................. (+4,448,356,000) 1The budget request includes an adjustment of $4,369,000,000 associated with revenue aligned budget authority; excludes transfer of $182,464,000 to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; and reduction 

of $54,749,000 associated with that transfer. 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a federal-state partnership. States and localities maintain ownership 

and responsibility for maintenance, repair and new construction of 

87

roads. State highway departments have the authority to initiate 

federal-aid projects subject to FHWA approval of plans, specifications, and cost estimates. The federal government provides financial support for construction and repair through matching grants, 

the terms of which vary with the type of road. 

There are almost four million miles of public roads in the United 

States and approximately 577,000 bridges. The Federal Government provides grants to states to assist in financing the construction and preservation of about 958,000 miles (24 percent) of these 

roads, which represents an extensive interstate system plus key 

feeder and collector routes. Highways eligible for federal aid carry 

about 84 percent of total U.S. highway traffic. 

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) reauthorized highway, highway safety, transit, and other surface 

transportation programs through fiscal year 2003. TEA–21 builds 

on programs and other initiatives established in the Intermodal 

Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, the previous major authorizing legislation for surface transportation programs. 

The Committee recommends liquidating cash appropriation of 

$30,000,000,000. This is equal to the fiscal year 2002 enacted level 

and is the required amount to pay the outstanding obligations of 

the various highway programs at levels provided in past Appropriation Acts. 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal year 

2003 federal-aid highways obligations to $27,653,143,000, a reduction of $4,145,961,000 from the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and 

$4,448,356,000 over the budget request. The recommended level is 

$4,369,000,000 above the level assumed in TEA–21. 

The obligation limitation for the federal-aid highways program 

does not include a downward adjustment of $4,369,000,000 in obligations resulting from revenue aligned budget authority. TEA–21 

provides for an automatic adjustment in the federal-aid highways 

program budget authority and obligation authority in any budget 

year in which projected income to the highway account of the highway trust fund are above or below estimates of income to the trust 

fund that were made at the time TEA–21 was enacted. Under law, 

a determination of the size of this increase or decrease in so-called 

‘‘firewall’’ spending levels is made in the President’s budget submission. TEA–21 calls for any such decreases in budget authority 

to be distributed proportionately among certain federal-aid highways apportioned and allocated programs, and for the overall federal-aid obligation limitation to be decreased by an equal amount. 

In total, the estimate of reduced income, and therefore obligations 

for fiscal year 2003, is $4,369,000,000 for the federal-aid highway 

program. However, the Appropriations Committee included language in section 1402 of the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill (Public Law 107–206) that restores the fiscal year 

2003 highway funding reduction due to TEA–21 by raising the 

highway guarantee by $4,369,000,000. Therefore, the entire 

$27,653,143,000 is guaranteed under the highway category. Because the provision increases the highway category, the increase in 

88

highway funding does not come at the expense of other discretionary programs. 

Although the following table reflects an estimated distribution of 

obligations by program category, the bill includes a limitation applicable only to the total of certain federal-aid spending. The following table indicates estimated obligations by program within the 

$27,653,143,000 provided by this Act and additional resources 

made available by permanent law: 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS

The following table reflects the estimated distribution of the federal-aid limitation by state:

ESTIMATED FY 2003 OBLIGATIONS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

State 

Estimated FY 

2003 formula 

limitation 

FY 2003 minimum guarantee 

Appalachian development high- ways 1

Total Change from FY 2002

Alabama ............................................ $384,255 $34,022 $43,794 $462,071 ¥$64,034

Alaska ................................................ 199,842 70,039 0 269,881 ¥33,080

Arizona ............................................... 365,260 52,053 0 417,313 ¥58,505

Arkansas ............................................ 271,508 27,056 0 298,564 ¥37,756

California ........................................... 1,959,265 139,960 0 2,099,225 ¥267,525

Colorado ............................................ 283,927 19,380 0 303,307 ¥38,159

Connecticut ....................................... 296,518 47,902 0 344,420 ¥42,502

Delaware ............................................ 97,800 8,337 0 106,137 ¥12,262

District of Columbia .......................... 91,935 315 0 92,250 ¥12,690

Florida ............................................... 929,943 158,387 0 1,088,329 ¥152,610

Georgia .............................................. 703,280 103,998 17,502 824,780 ¥115,146

Hawaii ............................................... 107,038 10,226 0 117,264 ¥16,266

Idaho ................................................. 148,249 19,639 0 167,887 ¥23,248

Illinois ................................................ 722,137 41,703 0 763,840 ¥105,432

Indiana .............................................. 472,220 62,792 0 535,012 ¥67,684

Iowa ................................................... 266,073 10,090 0 276,163 ¥34,610

Kansas ............................................... 260,726 7,997 0 268,723 ¥37,024

Kentucky ............................................ 335,024 26,786 40,174 401,984 ¥55,689

Louisiana ........................................... 337,422 23,726 0 361,148 ¥42,022

Maine ................................................. 113,758 8,313 0 122,071 ¥16,943

Maryland ............................................ 347,116 25,341 6,848 379,305 ¥44,525

Massachusetts .................................. 395,516 26,342 0 421,857 ¥54,407

Michigan ............................................ 664,026 75,221 0 739,248 ¥102,802

Minnesota .......................................... 316,312 19,781 0 336,093 ¥41,724

Mississippi ........................................ 271,328 21,580 4,911 297,819 ¥37,689

Missouri ............................................. 502,919 32,083 0 535,002 ¥67,848

Montana ............................................ 200,922 34,512 0 235,434 ¥27,334

Nebraska ........................................... 179,788 6,201 0 185,989 ¥25,794

Nevada .............................................. 150,183 18,532 0 168,716 ¥23,542

New Hampshire ................................. 104,974 9,965 0 114,938 ¥13,622

New Jersey ......................................... 559,537 33,418 0 592,956 ¥81,851

New Mexico ........................................ 204,828 21,628 0 226,456 ¥28,436

New York ........................................... 1,061,869 86,048 9,439 1,157,356 ¥150,818

North Carolina ................................... 551,483 70,602 25,784 647,869 ¥90,258

North Dakota ..................................... 145,450 10,771 0 156,222 ¥19,598

Ohio ................................................... 721,868 58,722 19,749 800,339 ¥101,629

Oklahoma .......................................... 343,372 14,902 0 358,274 ¥49,553

Oregon ............................................... 259,448 14,247 0 273,695 ¥34,338

Pennsylvania ..................................... 938,654 56,851 107,082 1,102,587 ¥151,588

Rhode Island ..................................... 128,924 11,892 0 140,817 ¥18,349

South Carolina .................................. 345,092 45,378 2,145 392,616 ¥50,241

South Dakota ..................................... 150,810 13,143 0 163,953 ¥20,588

Tennessee .......................................... 440,046 37,433 49,098 526,577 ¥60,998

Texas ................................................. 1,594,413 214,113 0 1,808,525 ¥252,766

Utah ................................................... 170,275 7,816 0 178,091 ¥24,550

Vermont ............................................. 101,110 6,876 0 107,986 ¥12,532

89

ESTIMATED FY 2003 OBLIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars] 

State 

Estimated FY 

2003 formula 

limitation 

FY 2003 minimum guarantee 

Appalachian development highways 1

Total Change from FY 

2002

Virginia .............................................. 533,615 61,643 10,320 605,578 ¥70,062

Washington ........................................ 385,806 18,210 0 404,016 ¥55,647

West Virginia ..................................... 174,804 11,106 60,894 246,805 ¥29,861

Wisconsin .......................................... 400,802 53,363 0 454,164 ¥63,352

Wyoming ............................................ 156,135 9,559 0 165,692 ¥18,335

Subtotal ............................... 20,847,605 2,000,000 397,740 23,245,345 ¥3,057,826

Special Limitation: 

High Priority Projects ............... ........................ ........................ ........................ 1,778,372 170,725

Woodrow Wilson Bridge ............ ........................ ........................ ........................ 202,275 ¥30,667

Allocation Reserve .................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 2,427,152 ¥1,228,192

Total Limitation ................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 27,653,143 ¥4,145,961

1 Totals for Appalachian Development Highways do not include $100,000,000 provided in this bill outside of TEA–21

Under TEA–21, Federal-aid highways funds are made available 

through the following major programs:

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Programs FY 2001

actual 

FY 2002

estimate 

FY 2003

estimate 

Subject to limitation: 

Surface Transportation Program .............................................................. $7,125,997 $6,960,222 $6,233,877

National Highway System ........................................................................ 5,444,542 5,954,976 5,340,660

Interstate Maintenance ............................................................................ 4,107,833 5,020,689 4,437,608

Bridge Program ........................................................................................ 3,035,729 4,300,544 3,805,079

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement .............................. 883,818 1,692,402 1,515,103

Minimum Guarantee ................................................................................ 2,004,786 1,572,609 1,829,044

Safety Incentive Grants for Use of Seat Belts ........................................ 93,286 110,220 100,688

ITS Standards, Research and Development ............................................ 86,018 120,488 98,890

ITS Deployment ........................................................................................ 86,366 167,328 109,678

Transportation Research .......................................................................... 201,025 261,872 210,351

Federal Lands Highways .......................................................................... 635,672 855,323 624,010

National Corridor Planning and Coordinated Border Infrastu ................ 122,096 509,419 125,860

Administration .......................................................................................... 294,470 310,159 370,042

Other Programs ........................................................................................ 1,753,597 793,438 365,656

High Priority Projects Program ................................................................ 1,159,272 1,413,556 1,478,376

Woodrow Wilson Bridge (Special) ............................................................ 342,084 305,110 202,275

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation ........................... 113,748 109,161 116,870

Appalachian Development Highway System1 ......................................... 320,641 720,786 397,740

Total Subject to Obligation Limitation 2 ............................................. 27,810,980 31,178,302 27,361,807

Emergency Relief Program ................................................................................ 87,919 125,287 100,000

Minimum Allocation/Guarantee ......................................................................... 745,440 595,493 621,597

Demonstration Projects ............................................................................ 159,855 244,529 171,170

Reestimates of Direct Loan Subsidy/Interest on Subsidy ................................ 0 19,000 0

Total Exempt Programs ....................................................................... 993,214 984,309 892,767

Emergency Relief Supplemental ....................................................................... 566,298 400,867 0

Grand Total, Federal-Aid Highways (Direct) ....................................... 29,370,492 32,563,478 28,254,574

1 Totals for Appalachian Development Highways do not include $100,000,000 provided in this bill outside of TEA–21. 2 Reflects estimated obligations which may be less than the enacted obligation limitation. 

National highway system.—The ISTEA of 1991 authorized—and 

the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 subsequently established—the National Highway System (NHS). This 

90

163,000-mile road system serving major population centers, international border crossings, intermodal transportation facilities and 

major travel destinations, is the culmination of years of effort by 

many organizations, both public and private, to identify routes of 

national significance. It includes all Interstate routes, other urban 

and rural principal arterials, the defense strategic highway network, and major strategic highway connectors, and is estimated to 

carry up to 76 percent of commercial truck traffic and 44 percent 

of all vehicular traffic. A state may choose to transfer up to 50 percent of its NHS funds to the surface transportation program category. If the Secretary approves, 100 percent may be transferred. 

The federal share of the NHS is 80 percent, with an availability period of 4 years. 

Interstate maintenance.—The 46,567-mile Dwight D. Eisenhower 

National System of Interstate and Defense Highways retains a separate identity within the NHS. This program finances projects to 

rehabilitate, restore, resurface and reconstruct the Interstate system. Reconstruction of bridges, interchanges, and over-crossings 

along existing interstate routes is also an eligible activity if it does 

not add capacity other than high occupancy vehicle (HOV) and auxiliary lanes. 

Funds provided for the Interstate maintenance discretionary program in fiscal year 2003 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount 

Freeway Interchange at Lammers Road and I–205, Tracey, California ................................................................................................... $500,000

Grandview Triangle, Kansas City, Missouri ....................................... 1,000,000

Hawkins Crossing, I–20/59 Interchange, Meridian, Mississippi ....... 5,000,000

I–10 Interchange at Grand Prairie Highway, Rayne, Louisiana ....... 1,000,000

I–10 Irvington Interchange, Alabama .................................................. 4,000,000

I–10 Riverside Avenue Interchange, California .................................. 2,000,000

I–12 at Essen Lane, Louisiana ............................................................. 250,000

I–12 sound barriers, Slidell, Louisiana ................................................ 1,500,000

I–12/Northshore Blvd-Airport Road Interchange Improvements—

St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana ....................................................... 1,000,000

I–16 and Dean Forest Road Interchange, Georgia .............................. 250,000 

I–16/I–516 Interchange design and reconstruction, Georgia ............. 1,000,000

I–16/I–95 Interchange Reconstruction Concept Study Chatham 

County, Georgia .................................................................................. 250,000

I–235 reconstruction, Polk County, Iowa ............................................. 2,800,000

I–235/Harrison Avenue off-ramp and Walnut Avenue Relocation, 

Oklahoma ............................................................................................ 1,200,000

I–26 Little Mountain Interchange improvements, South Carolina ... 500,000

I–29 Madison Street interchange, Sioux Falls, South Dakota ........... 2,500,000

I–295 Interchange at Meadowville Road, Chesterfield County, Virginia ..................................................................................................... 500,000

I–35 East/I–635 interchange, Texas ..................................................... 750,000

I–35W Lake Street Access, Minnesota ................................................. 9,000,000

I–40 and Paseo del Volcan Interchange and Access Road to Double 

Eagle II, Albuquerque, New Mexico ................................................. 2,000,000

I–44 Interchanges at SH–51 and US–169, Tulsa, Oklahoma ............ 750,000

I–44, Phelps County, Missouri .............................................................. 2,250,000

I–49 North to the Arkansas Line (Access Improvements to I–220 

@ US 71/LA 1 & LA 172), Louisiana ................................................ 1,000,000

I–540 & Perry Road Interchange, Rogers, Arkansas .......................... 2,000,000

I–64, Vanderburgh and Posey counties, Indiana ................................ 1,000,000

I–69/SR 304 (construction Odom Road to I–55), Mississippi ............. 2,000,000

I–70/MD85/MD355 intersection reconstruction, Maryland ................ 1,000,000

I–74 Reconstruction, Mississippi River Bridge Replacement, Scott 

County, Iowa ....................................................................................... 950,000

I–75 Exits 49 and 52, McMinn County, Tennessee ............................ 500,000

91

Project Amount 

I–75, Rockcastle County, Kentucky ...................................................... 4,500,000

I–77/Shuffel Road interchange, Canton, Ohio ..................................... 1,000,000

I–80 Colfax Narrows Project, Placer County, California .................... 250,000

I–81 Interchange, Syracuse, New York ............................................... 1,300,000

I–84/Exit 17 at Routes 63 and 64, Middlebury/Waterbury, Connecticut ................................................................................................ 2,000,000

I–84/I–87 Interchange, New York ........................................................ 1,500,000

I–84/Route 2 East Hartford, operational improvements, Connecticut (flyover access) ..................................................................... 1,000,000

I–90 two-way transit operations, Washington .................................... 500,000

I–96/Cedar/Pennsylvania Interchange, Michigan ............................... 450,000

Interstate 40: Mississippi River Bridge Seismic Retrofit, Arkansas 1,000,000

Interstate 5, Rush Road to Maytown widening, Washington ............ 1,000,000

Interstate 5, Salem, Oregon (Boone Road Bridge replacement) ........ 1,000,000

Interstate Highway 35 perpetual pavement testing section, LaSalle 

County, Texas ..................................................................................... 1,000,000

Interstate Highway 45 frontage road and ramp system improvements, Huntsville, Texas ................................................................... 1,000,000

Interstate Highway 30 in Texarkana from FM 989 (Kings Highway) in Bowie County, Texas to the Arkansas state line (US 71) 1,000,000

Laval Road Interchange Upgrade at I–5, California .......................... 500,000

Louisville-Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project, Indiana .... 4,000,000

Louisville-Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project, Kentucky 4,000,000

Marquette Interchange, Milwaukee, Wisconsin .................................. 6,000,000

Needs assessment study of the I–84/Route 8 interchange, Waterbury, Connecticut ............................................................................... 1,000,000

New York State Thruway Authority, Westchester County, Bryam 

Bridge rehabilitation and pavement reconstruction, New York ..... 1,000,000

Port Everglades-Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Airport Return Loop, 

Florida ................................................................................................. 1,000,000

Reconstruction of I–135, Sedgwick County, Kansas ........................... 1,000,000

Reconstruction of I–95/I–91/CT 34 Interchange, New Haven, Connecticut (Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge—I–95 New Haven East 

Approach to Q-Bridge) ....................................................................... 2,000,000

Rehabilitation of I–20, Erath, Palo, Pinto, and Parker counties, 

Texas ................................................................................................... 2,350,000

Rehabilitation of pavement and bridges on I–95 in Halifax/Nash 

Counties, North Carolina .................................................................. 1,000,000

Lyndale Avenue Bridge, Richfield, Minnesota .................................... 3,000,000

Right of way acquisition, Paterson, New Jersey interchange improvements ......................................................................................... 200,000

Interstate 79/SR 3025 missing ramps, Jackson Township, Pennsylvania .................................................................................................... 500,000

Tippecanoe/I–10 Interchange and medical center access, San 

Bernardino, California ....................................................................... 3,000,000

Waukee/West Des Moines I–80 Interchange, Iowa ............................. 2,500,000

All remaining federal funding to complete the initial construction 

of the interstate system has been provided through previous highway legislation. TEA–21 provides flexibility to States in fully utilizing remaining unobligated balances of prior Interstate Construction authorizations. States with no remaining work to complete the 

interstate system may transfer any surplus Interstate Construction 

funds to their interstate maintenance program. States with remaining completion work on Interstate gaps or open-to-traffic segments may relinquish interstate construction fund eligibility for 

the work and transfer the federal share of the cost to their interstate maintenance program. 

Surface transportation program.—The surface transportation program (STP) is a flexible program that may be used by the states 

and localities for any roads (including NHS) that are not functionally classified as local or rural minor collectors. These roads are 

collectively referred to as Federal-aid highways. Bridge projects 

paid with STP funds are not restricted to Federal-aid highways but 

92

may be on any public road. Transit capital projects are also eligible 

under this program. The total funding for the STP may be augmented by the transfer of funds from other programs and by minimum guarantee funds under TEA–21, which may be used as if 

they were STP funds. Once distributed to the states, STP funds 

must be used according to the following percentages: 10 percent for 

safety construction; 10 percent for transportation enhancement; 50 

percent divided among areas of over 200,000 population and remaining areas of the State; and, 30 percent for any area of the 

state. Areas of 5,000 population or less are guaranteed an amount 

based on previous funding, and 15 percent of the amounts reserved 

for these areas may be spent on rural minor collectors. The federal 

share for the STP program is 80 percent with a 4-year availability 

period. 

Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.—This program 

provides assistance for bridges on public roads including a discretionary set-aside for high cost bridges and for the seismic retrofit 

of bridges. Fifty percent of a state’s bridge funds may be transferred to the NHS or the STP, but the amount of any such transfer 

is deducted from national bridge needs used in the program’s apportionment formula for the following year.

Funds provided for the bridge discretionary program in fiscal 

year 2003 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount 

12th Street Viaduct, Kansas City, Missouri ........................................ $1,000,000

Batchellerville Bridge replacement, New York ................................... 3,000,000

Bridge Renovations, Meriden, Connecticut (Hanover/Grove Street, 

Hanover/South Butler Street, and approaches to the Center 

Street Bridge) ..................................................................................... 1,000,000

Brown Road Bridge, Anderson County, South Carolina .................... 2,000,000

Chattahoochee River Bridge, Roswell, Georgia ................................... 3,000,000

Chouteau Bridge, Kansas City, Missouri ............................................ 1,000,000

City of El Paso, Texas, Ysleta Port of entry dedicated commuter 

lane ...................................................................................................... 500,000

CR 528 Mantoloking Bridge, Brick Township, New Jersey ............... 2,000,000

Gilmerton Bridge Replacement, Chesapeake, Virginia ...................... 3,000,000

Grand Lagoon Bridge Replacement, Florida ....................................... 1,000,000

Gravina Bridge, Ketchikan, Alaska ..................................................... 2,000,000

Highway 3364 bridge replacement at College Road, Bourbon County, Kentucky ....................................................................................... 200,000

Highway 82, Greenville Bridge, Arkansas .......................................... 3,500,000

Hood River/White Salmon Bridge and toll plaza resurfacing, Oregon ..................................................................................................... 1,350,000

I–195 Washington Bridge (east bound), Rhode Island ....................... 2,000,000

I–30 replacement bridge, Dallas, Texas ............................................... 2,000,000

I–40/Louisiana Interchange, New Mexico ............................................ 1,000,000

I–95 Bridge, New Haven Replacement of Bridge No. 00163A, West 

River, Connecticut .............................................................................. 2,000,000

Indian River Inlet Bridge Repair and Planning, Sussex County, 

Delaware ............................................................................................. 1,000,000

Interstate 74 Mississippi River Bridge between Moline, Illinois and 

Bettendorf, Iowa ................................................................................. 1,000,000

Iowa/Nebraska Missouri River Bridge—#DPS–34–7(114), near 

Plattsmouth, Nebraska ...................................................................... 2,200,000

LA 143–US166 Connector and Ouachita River Bridge, Louisiana .... 500,000

Leeville Bridge, Lafourche parish, Louisiana ...................................... 1,000,000

Lincoln County bridge renovation, Kentucky ...................................... 1,000,000

Martin Luther King, Jr., Bridge rehabilitation, Ohio ........................ 4,100,000

McCleary Bridge, Wausau, Wisconsin ................................................. 5,500,000

Monroe Street Bridge rehabilitation, Washington .............................. 2,500,000

Randleman Lake Project bridge replacement, North Carolina .......... 2,000,000

93

Project Amount 

Red Cliff Arch Bridge (US 24), Minturn, Colorado ............................. 1,000,000

Replacement of US 34 Missouri River Bridge, Mills County, Iowa 1,000,000

Route 52 Causeway Replacement and Somers Point Circle Elimination, New Jersey ............................................................................ 2,000,000

Route 72 Manahawkin Bay Bridges, New Jersey ............................... 2,000,000

Sauvie Island Bridge, Oregon ............................................................... 1,000,000

SH 6 at Waco, South Bosque River Bridge, McLennan County, 

Texas ................................................................................................... 4,500,000

Snake River Crossing, Twin Falls, Idaho ............................................ 1,500,000

SR 104/Hood Canal Bridge east half replacement, Washington ........ 1,000,000

Tate’s Bluff Bridge Project, Arkansas .................................................. 500,000

US 15 Market Street Bridge Replacement, Williamsport, Pennsylvania .................................................................................................... 4,000,000

US 6 Broadway Street Viaduct, Council Bluffs, Iowa ........................ 1,000,000

West Broadway Bridge, Patterson, New Jersey .................................. 350,000

Woodrow Wilson Bridge restoration project, Mississippi ................... 2,800,000

Funds provided for seismic retrofit under the bridge discretionary program in fiscal year 2003 shall be available for the following activity in the corresponding amount:

Project Amount 

Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit ................................................... $5,000,000

Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program.—

This program provides funds to states to improve air quality in 

non-attainment and maintenance areas. A wide range of transportation activities are eligible, provided DOT, after consultation with 

EPA, determines they are likely to help meet national ambient air 

quality standards. TEA–21 provides greater flexibility to engage 

public-private partnerships, and expands and clarifies eligibilities 

to include programs to reduce extreme cold starts, maintenance 

areas, and particulate matter (PM–10) nonattainment and maintenance areas. If a state has no non-attainment or maintenance 

areas, the funds may be used as if they were STP funds. 

On-road and off-road demonstration projects may be appropriate 

candidates for funding under the CMAQ program. Both sectors are 

critical for satisfying the purposes of the CMAQ program, including 

reducing regional emissions and verifying new mobile source control techniques. 

Federal lands highways.—This program provides funding 

through four major categories—Indian reservation roads, parkways 

and park roads, public lands highways (which incorporates the previous forest highways category), and Federally-owned public roads 

providing access to or within the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

TEA–21 also established a new program for improving deficient 

bridges on Indian reservation roads. 

Funds provided for the federal lands program in fiscal year 2003 

shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding 

amounts:

Project Amount 

14th Street Bridge Corridor, Virginia .................................................. $7,600,000

17-Mile Road on Wind River Indian Reservation, Fremont County, 

Wyoming ............................................................................................. 1,000,000

206 Stokes State Park, New Jersey ..................................................... 1,245,000

Abraham Lincoln’s birthplace, national historic site, Kentucky ........ 600,000

Access roads to Beale Air Force Base, California ............................... 1,000,000

Arches National Park, Utah ................................................................. 1,385,000

BIA Route 1281 (Snake Road Realignment & Repair), Florida ......... 1,000,000

Black Narrows and Chinoteague Bridge, Virginia .............................. 1,180,000

Blackstone River Valley Bikeway, Rhode Island ................................ 2,000,000

Cape Flattery Tribal Scenic Byway paving project, Washington ...... 3,000,000

94

Project Amount 

Cattle Point Road (San Juan Island)—erosion remediation, Washington .................................................................................................. 350,000

City of Boston—Boston Harbor Islands National Park/Long Island 

Pier Planning and design, Massachusetts ....................................... 250,000

City of Rocks Back Country Byway, Cassia County, Idaho ............... 1,000,000

CN3852 FHP 45–1(5), Sunspot Road, New Mexico ............................ 1,000,000

Cold Hill Road, Laurel County, Kentucky ........................................... 1,600,000

Construct Regional Tourism Center and Transportation Hub, Hyde 

Park, New York .................................................................................. 1,500,000

Council Grove Lake/Reservoir from US highways 177 and 56, Kansas ........................................................................................................ 1,500,000

Cuyahoga Scenic Rail Line (Canton-Akron-Cleveland Commuter 

Rail Project), Ohio .............................................................................. 3,000,000

Daniel Boone Parkway, Kentucky ........................................................ 1,000,000

Forest Highway 87 (FM 201), Sabine National Forest, Sabine 

County, Texas ..................................................................................... 2,000,000

Frog Level Road Improvement, Mississippi ........................................ 5,000,000

GBH Solomon National Cemetery Access, Saratoga, New York ....... 40,000

Highway 26, Oregon .............................................................................. 1,980,000

Homochitto National Forest access road, Lincoln County, Mississippi ................................................................................................ 2,000,000

Hoover Dam Bypass, Arizona ............................................................... 5,000,000

I–215/I–515 Interchange, Henderson, Nevada .................................... 2,000,000

Improved access to Dyess Air Force Base, Texas ................................ 1,000,000

Lake Mead National Recreation Area gateway improvements, Nevada ..................................................................................................... 500,000

Land Between the Lakes Roads, Trigg and Lyon counties, Kentucky .................................................................................................... 100,000

Louisiana Highway (LA 117), 4-lane expansion study, Louisiana .... 500,000

Lowell Canalway and Riverwalk Design, Massachusetts .................. 780,000

Mammoth Cave Parkway (KY 101), Edmonson County, Kentucky 450,000

Marin Parklands/Muir Woods visitor access, California .................... 2,000,000

Marysville Road, Montana .................................................................... 1,000,000

Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, SR 164, Washington ................................. 420,000

Needles Highway, CA/NV Improvements, California ......................... 2,000,000

Patuxent River Naval Air Station Museum and Visitor Center, 

Maryland ............................................................................................. 3,400,000

Presidio Trust/Crissy Field transit access improvement, California 1,000,000

Preston North and South Project, Nebraska ....................................... 1,300,000

Ramsey Street extension, Banning, California ................................... 3,000,000

Rehabilitation of County Route 37 and Alternate Route 37, Jefferson County, New York ....................................................................... 750,000

236 Claggett Hill Road Construction with Lewis & Clark Ferry 

Boat Facilities, Missouri River, Montana ........................................ 3,000,000

Sotgun Cove Road, City of Whittier, Alaska ....................................... 2,000,000

Southern Beltway (I–215) upgrade project from Pecos Road to 

Stephanie Street and from Interstate 15 to Pecos Road, Clark 

County, Nevada .................................................................................. 1,000,000

Spirit Lake Tribe shared use path, Fort Totten, North Dakota ........ 520,000

State Highway 149, Colorado ............................................................... 1,000,000

Tank Destroyer Boulevard, Fort Hood, Texas ..................................... 2,000,000

Timucuan Preserve bike route, Florida ............................................... 1,000,000

Tombigee National Forest public access improvements, Mississippi 1,750,000

Traffic abatement study for highway 98, entrance to Hurlbert 

Field, Florida ...................................................................................... 500,000

Trail Extension at Mount Vernon Circle, Virginia ............................. 400,000

Tualatin River NWR Turn Lanes, Oregon .......................................... 900,000

USMC Heritage Center Access Improvements, Virginia .................... 2,000,000

Western MD Low Impact Welcome Center at Byron Overlook, 

Maryland ............................................................................................. 800,000

Widening and rehabilitation of FM 2500, Polk County, Texas .......... 1,000,000

Woonsocket Depot rehabilitation, Rhode Island ................................. 1,000,000

The Committee directs that the funds allocated above be derived 

from the FHWA’s public lands discretionary program, and not from 

funds allocated to the Fish and Wildlife Service’s and National 

Park Service’s regions. 

95

Minimum guarantee.—Under TEA–21, after the computation of 

funds for major Federal-aid programs, additional funds are distributed to ensure that each State receives an additional amount based 

on equity considerations. This minimum guarantee provision ensures that each State will have a return of 90.5 percent on its 

share of contributions to the highway account of the Highway 

Trust Fund. To achieve the minimum guarantee each fiscal year, 

$2.8 billion nationally is available to the States as though they are 

STP funds (except that requirements related to set-asides for transportation enhancements, safety, and sub-State allocations do not 

apply), and any remaining amounts are distributed among core 

highway programs.

Emergency relief.—This program provides for the repair and reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and Federally-owned roads 

which have suffered serious damage as the result of natural disasters or catastrophic failures. TEA–21 restates the program eligibility specifying that emergency relief (ER) funds can be used only 

for emergency repairs to restore essential highway traffic, to minimize the extent of damage resulting from a natural disaster or catastrophic failure, or to protect the remaining facility and make permanent repairs. If ER funds are exhausted, the Secretary of Transportation may borrow funds from other highway programs. 

High priority projects.—TEA–21 includes 1,850 high priority 

projects specified by the Congress. Funding for these projects totals 

$9.5 billion over the 6 year period with a specified percentage of 

the project funds made available each year. Unlike demonstration 

projects in the past, the funds for TEA–21 high priority projects are 

subject to the Federal-aid obligation limitation, but the obligation 

limitation associated with the projects does not expire. 

Appalachian development highway system.—This program makes 

funds available to construct highways and access roads under section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965. 

Under TEA–21, funding is authorized at $450,000,000 for each of 

fiscal years 1999–2003; is available until expended; and distributed 

based on the latest available cost-to-complete estimate. 

National corridor planning and border infrastructure programs.—TEA–21 established a new national corridor planning and 

development program that provides funds for the coordinated planning, design, and construction of corridors of national significance, 

economic growth, and international or interregional trade. Allocations may be made to corridors identified in section 1105(c) of 

ISTEA and to other corridors using considerations identified in legislation. The coordinated border infrastructure program is established to improve the safe movement of people and goods at or 

across the U.S./Canadian and U.S./Mexican borders. 

Funds provided for the national corridor planning and border infrastructure programs in fiscal year 2003 shall be available for the 

following activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount 

12 Mile Road, Orchard Lake Road to Middlebelt Road, Michigan .... $750,000

Alameda Corridor East, Los Angeles County, California ................... 1,000,000

Appalachian Development Highway System, Corridor V, Mississippi ................................................................................................ 500,000

Appalachian North-South Corridor Study on US Route 220, West 

Virginia ............................................................................................... 1,000,000

96

Project Amount 

Barton River Port Industrial Park, US Hwy 72, Colbert County, 

Alabama .............................................................................................. 1,500,000

Baseline Road Project—Isabella County, Michigan ............................ 500,000

Bomber Road, Fort Worth, Texas ......................................................... 1,000,000

Clay/Leslie Industrial Park Access, Kentucky .................................... 570,000

County Road 1050 Bridge over Embarrase River to SR 130, Cumberland County, Illinois ..................................................................... 2,000,000

County Road 222 Bridge, Cullman County, Alabama ........................ 1,000,000

Cross Harbor Freight Movement Project Environmental Impact 

Statement, New York ........................................................................ 2,000,000

Dempster Commercial Corridor Improvements—Village of Morton 

Grove, Illinois ..................................................................................... 500,000

Donna-Rio Bravo International Border Crossing, Texas .................... 1,000,000

Effingham-Teutoplois Road, Illinois ..................................................... 1,000,000

EIS for State Rt 75, Coronado Tunnel, California .............................. 1,500,000

Fairmont Gateway Connector (I–79 Connector), West Virginia ........ 2,000,000

Gateway Corridor Initiative, Indiana .................................................. 850,000

Granite Falls Alternate Route Project, Washington ........................... 1,000,000

Heartland Expressway (SD79), South Dakota .................................... 500,000

Highway 100 (Collins Road)—Cedar Rapids, Iowa ............................. 750,000

Highway 231 Glover Carey Bridge and Owensboro intersection, 

Kentucky ............................................................................................. 800,000

Highway 412 Springdale Bypass, Springdale, Arkansas ................... 1,778,000

Highway 52 Corridor Plan, Intersection of US Hwy 52 at Dakota 

City, Rd 47, Minnesota ...................................................................... 1,000,000

Highway 55 Corridor Preservation—I–494 in Hennepin County to 

Annadale—Wright County, Minnesota ............................................ 1,500,000

Highway 71 Texarkana South, Arkansas ............................................ 1,000,000

Highway 71, Alma—Greenwood, Arkansas ......................................... 1,000,000

Highway Improvements along T.H. 13 corridor near Ports of Savage, Minnesota ................................................................................... 1,000,000

Highway US 12 Phase II, between Burbank and Walla Walla, 

Washington ......................................................................................... 1,000,000

Hot Springs Bypass, Highway 270 to Highway 5/7, Arkansas .......... 1,000,000

Hwy 15 Bridge Replacements, Jasper County, Bay Springs, Mississippi ................................................................................................ 1,000,000

I–35 expansion, Hill County, Texas ..................................................... 1,500,000

I–35/127th Street Overpass, Olathe, Kansas ...................................... 1,000,000

1–39 (Stevens Point—Mosinee, Wisconsin) ......................................... 2,000,000

I–40 Crosstown Expressway realignment, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma .................................................................................................... 1,000,000

I–59 and FM 2919, Isleib, Texas .......................................................... 500,000

I–65 and County Road 24 interchange, Limestone County, Alabama 1,500,000

I–66, Pike County, Kentucky ................................................................ 2,000,000

I–69 Connector from I–530 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas .......................... 1,000,000

I–69 Corridors 18 and 20, Texas .......................................................... 3,000,000

I–69/Great River Bridge: Highway 65—Mississippi Highway 1, Mississippi ................................................................................................ 5,250,000

I–75—Laurel County, Kentucky ........................................................... 1,000,000

I–99 Frankstown Road, Pennsylvania ................................................. 200,000

IH 35—FM 2484 Amity Road, Shankin Road Overpass—Bell County, Texas .............................................................................................. 2,000,000

Illinois Pioneer Parkway and Growth Cell Infrastructure Improvements, Peoria ...................................................................................... 1,000,000

Illinois Route 29, Berry and Edinburg, Illinois ................................... 1,000,000

Industrial park access improvements, Escambia County, Atmore, 

Alabama .............................................................................................. 1,000,000

Intermodal Transportation study for corridor from Atlanta to 

Chattanoga, Tennessee ...................................................................... 750,000

Lakeland In-Town Bypass, Florida ...................................................... 200,000

Lincoln bypass—SR 65/Westwood Interchange Construction, California ................................................................................................... 2,000,000

Lincoln Highway 65 Widening (The Gap) Project, California ............ 500,000

Martel Road Underpass—Loudon County Tennessee ........................ 750,000

Meridian Bridge Replacement—US 81 Missouri River—Yankton, 

South Dakota ...................................................................................... 500,000

Monticello Street Overpass, Kentucky ................................................. 7,750,000

Mississippi Highway 44/Pearl River Bridge Extension Project ......... 2,000,000

97

Project Amount 

New Corridor Land Acquisition; Westlake—North Olmstead/Crocker—Stearns Connection, Ohio ........................................................... 500,000

New York Avenue Between 11th Street and Nassau Road—Huntington Station, New York. ................................................................ 500,000

North Street Corridor, Fitchburg, Massachusetts .............................. 800,000

Old Highway 471, Rankin County, Mississippi .................................. 1,000,000

Port Connector Road, Pine Bluff/Jefferson County, Arkansas ........... 900,000

PA 501 Schaefferstown Bypass, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania ...... 620,000

Railroad Avenue Extension—Berkeley County, South Carolina ....... 750,000

Ranchero Road/Cajon Line Grade Separation, California .................. 750,000

River Road from Beargrass Creek to Zorn Avenue, Kentucky .......... 1,000,000

Roosevelt Connector—Pinellas County, Florida .................................. 10,000,000

Route 1/9, 35 Interchange, New Jersey ............................................... 750,000

Route 116 planning and design, Amherst, Massachusetts ................. 800,000

Route 12—Auburn Veteran’s Memorial Corridor, Auburn, Massachusetts ............................................................................................... 250,000

Route 2 Improvements in Erving, Orange, Massachusetts ................ 4,400,000

Route 334/Derr Road, Ohio ................................................................... 1,000,000

Route 422 East, Between New Castle and Rose Point, Pennsylvania .................................................................................................... 250,000

Route 67, St. Francois County, Missouri ............................................. 250,000

Route 7 Bypass West of Leesburg (Loudoun County/Town of Leesburg), Virginia .................................................................................... 1,750,000

Route 72 Relocation—Briston, Connecticut ......................................... 1,500,000

Route 79 Relocation and Harbor Enhancement—Fall River, Massachusetts ............................................................................................... 500,000

South Avis Industrial Access Road, Pennsylvania .............................. 500,000

Northern bypass around Somerset, Kentucky .................................... 2,500,000

Southern Mahoning County US 62/SR 14 Bypass, Ohio .................... 1,000,000

Southern bypass around Somerset, Kentucky ..................................... 1,500,000

SR 247 and SR 2008, Moosic Mountain Business Park, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania ............................................................ 500,000

State Highway 158—US 87 to 4.75 miles west—Sterling County, 

Texas ................................................................................................... 1,000,000

State Route 0039 (Hershey Road) and I–81 Interchange, Pennsylvania .................................................................................................... 2,700,000

Sterns Road Fox River Bridge Crossing, Illinois ................................ 4,800,000

STH 29 (Chippewa Falls I–94)—between I–94 and CTH J, Wisconsin .................................................................................................. 2,000,000

Thomas Cole House Access, Catskill, New York ................................. 22,000

Trunk Highway 23 (TH 71 to CSAH 31), Minnesota ......................... 500,000

U.S. 24 Corridor Improvement Study and Implementation, Ohio ..... 2,000,000

U.S. 319 Expansion, Florida ................................................................. 3,000,000

U.S. Route 35 Improvements (upgrade road to I–64/US Route 35), 

West Virginia ...................................................................................... 1,500,000

US 20 relocation and right of way, Webster, Iowa ............................. 1,500,000

US 22 Reconstruction—Export to Delmont, Pennsylvania ................ 500,000

US 278 Cullman County, Alabama ...................................................... 200,000

US 280/ US 27 Intersection Improvement—Chattahoochee County, 

Georgia ................................................................................................ 250,000

US 41 A—Hopkins County, Kentucky ................................................. 230,000

US 51/SR 43 Connector Road—South Canton Industrial Access 

Corridor—Canton, Mississippi .......................................................... 500,000

US 60 Carter and Butler Counties, Missouri ...................................... 1,250,000

US 87 Relief Route, Lamesa, Texas ..................................................... 1,000,000

US Route 422 Transportation Improvement Project, Pennsylvania 1,000,000

USH 10 (Stevens Point—Waupaca), Wisconsin .................................. 2,000,000

USH 53 (Chippewa Falls-New Auburn, Wisconsin) ............................ 1,000,000

USH 53 Bypass of Eau Claire, Wisconsin ........................................... 2,000,000

Veteran’s Drive from Broadway to I–474, Pekin, Illinois ................... 500,000

West End Bypass, Johnstown, Pennsylvania ...................................... 1,000,000

West Laredo Multimodal Trade Corridor, Texas ................................ 2,500,000

Whatcom County, Cascade Gateway Mobility and Security Improvements, Washington ................................................................... 1,000,000

Whitley County emergency access road off US 25 W, Kentucky ....... 380,000

Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.—Section 1207 of TEA–

21 reauthorized funding for the construction of ferry boats and 

98

ferry terminal facilities. TEA–21 also included a new requirement 

that $20,000,000 from each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003 be set 

aside for marine highway systems that are part of the National 

Highway System for use by the states of Alaska, New Jersey and 

Washington. In fiscal year 2003, TEA–21 provides $38,000,000. 

Funds provided for the ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities 

program in fiscal year 2003 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount 

Beacon and Newburgh cities ferry boat and ferry facilities, New 

York ..................................................................................................... $1,100,000

Bridgeport High Speed Ferry Terminal improvements, Connecticut 500,000

City of Rochester harbor and ferry terminal improvements, New 

York ..................................................................................................... 1,500,000

Coffman Cove Ferry Terminal, Alaska ................................................ 500,000

Curtis ferry boat replacement, Maine State Ferry System ................ 500,000

Ferry Service—Dutchess County, New York ....................................... 1,000,000

Ferry service from Rockaway Peninsula to Manhattan (Jamaica 

Bay Transportation Hub), New York ............................................... 1,000,000

Fishers Island Ferry District, Connecticut .......................................... 3,000,000

Golden Gate ferry berth facility, San Francisco Terminal, California ................................................................................................... 1,000,000

Hatteras Inlet ferry connecting Ocracoke Island and North Carolina Outer banks, North Carolina ..................................................... 400,000

Jacksonville Ferry Stations (formerly St. Johns River Ferry Terminal), Florida .................................................................................... 500,000

Middle Bass Ferry Dock, Phase II, Ohio ............................................. 500,000

Newport Harbor water shuttles, Newport, Rhode Island ................... 500,000

Palm Beach County Water Taxi Facilities Project, Florida ............... 1,000,000

Plaquemines Parish ferry, Louisiana ................................................... 500,000

Ponce De Leon Inlet Water Taxi, Volusia County, Florida ................ 500,000

Port of Galveston, intermodal improvement program, Texas ............ 500,000

Removal and replacement of ferry-dock structure at Cherry Grove, 

Fire Island, New York ....................................................................... 100,000

Savannah Water Ferry, Georgia .......................................................... 500,000

Stamford High Speed Ferry, Connecticut ............................................ 500,000

State of Vermont, construction of Allen Point Ferry and ferry terminal facilities, Vermont ................................................................... 200,000

Toledo Hovercraft service development, Ohio ..................................... 1,200,000

Valdez, Alaska, ferry and dock facilities .............................................. 500,000

Winthrop commuter ferry project, Massachusetts .............................. 500,000

National scenic byways program.—This program provides funding for roads that are designated by the Secretary of Transportation as All American Roads (AAR) or National Scenic Byways 

(NSB). These roads have outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities. In fiscal year 2003, 

TEA–21 provides $26,500,000 for this program. Funds provided for 

the national scenic byways program in fiscal year 2003 shall be 

available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount 

Berkshire/Franklin Mohawk Trail Scenic Byway & Berkshire Jacobs Ladder Trail Scenic Byway, Massachusetts ............................ $1,000,000

Delsea Scenic Byway, Salem, Cumberland, Cape May Counties, 

New Jersey ......................................................................................... 149,000

High Street Revitalization, Lawrenceburg, Indiana ........................... 1,200,000

Intervale Scenic Vista Project, New Hampshire ................................. 500,000

Kentucky Scenic Byways ....................................................................... 1,425,000

Mt. Greylock Reservoir Road Improvements, North Adams, Massachusetts ............................................................................................... 1,100,000

Multi-Colored Scenic Byways Signs for Idaho’s Scenic, Historic, and 

Back County Byways ......................................................................... 382,000

New York State Scenic Byways Project: Statewide ............................ 1,600,000

U.S. Route 40 and National Road, Garrett County, Maryland .......... 233,600

99

Project Amount 

Ventura Freeway Scenic Corridor Initiative, California .................... 1,000,000

Washington DOT Scenic Byways Statewide Program ........................ 1,000,000

Transportation and community and system preservation pilot program.—TEA–21 established a new transportation and community 

and system preservation program that provides grants to states 

and local governments for planning, developing, and implementing 

strategies to integrate transportation and community and system 

preservation plans and practices. These grants may be used to improve the efficiency of the transportation system; reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment; reduce the need for 

costly future investments in public infrastructure; and provide efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade. 

Funds provided for the transportation and community and system preservation pilot program in fiscal year 2003 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount 

Arlington Boulevard design enhancements, Virginia ......................... 100,000

Assembly Street railroad consolidation and grade crossing elimination, South Carolina ...................................................................... 500,000

Bronx Center Transportation Project—E 161st Section II: between 

Grand Concourse/Sherman Ave and Park, New York .................... 700,000

Bronx Center Transportation Project (East 161st Street), 

streetscape improvement between Park & 3rd Avenue .................. 300,000

Bronx River Greenway, Bruckner to Hunts Point Riverside Park, 

New York ............................................................................................ 700,000

Campaign to Save Oatland’s Scenic Vistas, Virginia ......................... 500,000

Center City/University City bike and pedestrian bridge improvements, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania .................................................. 100,000

Centredale Village revitalization, Rhode Island ................................. 100,000

Charlestown, West Virginia Gateway Revitalization Project ............ 400,000

City of Fort Worth corridor redevelopment program, Texas .............. 100,000

City-wide automobile insurance feasibility study, Philadelphia, 

Pennsylvania ...................................................................................... 100,000

Comprehensive transportation impact study for OH, KY, IN Regional Council of Governments ......................................................... 200,000

Congestion improvements to Passaic Street, New Jersey .................. 100,000

Connaught Avenue Street Drainage Project, West Amwell Township, New Jersey ................................................................................ 100,000

Copeland Covered Bridge, Saratoga County, New York .................... 28,000

Crawford County and Palestine Illinois Road upgrade, Illinois ........ 200,000

Detroit Streetscape Improvements, Michigan ..................................... 350,000

Detroit Area Regional Transportation Authority (DARTA), Michigan ....................................................................................................... 500,000

Eisenhower Avenue Greenway, Phase II, Virginia ............................. 100,000

Elkins Railroad Bridge Visitors Center, West Virginia ...................... 600,000

Five Point Improvement Project, Huntsville, Alabama ...................... 100,000

Gasholder House and Underground Railroad Museum, Oberlin, 

Ohio ..................................................................................................... 100,000

Grade Separation at Intersection of Hamilton Boulevard over the 

CSX rail line near US 90, Mobile, Alabama .................................... 100,000

Grand Illinois Trail bike connections, Illinois ..................................... 100,000

Greeno Road (US98) Pilot Program, Fairhope, Alabama ................... 650,000

Haleyville, Alabama downtown revitalization ..................................... 600,000

Harden Street improvements, Columbia, South Carolina ................. 500,000

Highway 212 between Norwood Young America and Cologne in 

Carver County, Minnesota ................................................................ 1,000,000

Houston Main Street Corridor revitalization project implementation, Texas .......................................................................................... 100,000

HUB Business District Project, New York .......................................... 1,000,000

I–73 North Carolina State line to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina ..... 272,000

I–84 Exit 11 Danbury/Newton, Connecticut ........................................ 300,000

Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore (IDNL) hike/bike trail and pedestrian bridge/overpass, Indiana ..................................................... 100,000

Jasper, Alabama downtown revitalization .......................................... 150,000

100

Project Amount 

Johnsontown Road, Kentucky ............................................................... 250,000

Kentucky Trimodal Transpark access road, Kentucky ....................... 250,000

Lewis and Clark Intepretive Center to Fort Mandan shared use 

path, North Dakota ............................................................................ 400,000

Louisville Waterfront/Frankfort Avenue historical entryway, Kentucky .................................................................................................... 300,000

Lower Second Creek Greenway, Knoxville, Tennessee ...................... 100,000

Marlboro Township traffic improvement project ................................. 100,000

Massachusetts Wood in Transportation, Mount Wachusett Community College, Gardner, Massachusetts .............................................. 200,000

Monroe Township intersection signalization project, New Jersey ..... 100,000

Morgan, Menifee, Rowan County Regional Business Park Access 

Road, Kentucky .................................................................................. 250,000

Multimodal transportation plan, Wisconsin ........................................ 100,000

Multi-use Equestrian and Hiking Trail, Holmes County, Ohio ......... 500,000

Pedestrian Access, Rockville, Maryland .............................................. 150,000

Pedestrian Bridge, 36th Avenue, Robbinsdale, Minnesota ................ 750,000

Pine Creek Bridge and Rail-Trail, Pennsylvania ................................ 200,000

Pine Mountain Industrial Park Access Road, Kentucky .................... 1,500,000

Railroad Avenue Underpass, East Chicago, Indiana .......................... 500,000

Route 50 traffic calming, Loudoun and Fauquier counties, Virginia 750,000

Route 79 Relocation and Harbor Enhancement—Fall River, Massachusetts ............................................................................................... 100,000

Sayville, New York, pedestrian improvements ................................... 100,000

Simon Kenton Trail, Springfield to Urbana, Ohio .............................. 750,000

Somerset downtown revitalization, Kentucky ..................................... 1,800,000

South Suburban Commuter Rail Service (Metra), Illinois ................. 100,000

St. Louis economic council community and system preservation 

project, Missouri ................................................................................. 100,000

St. Petersburg, Florida, Bike/Pedestrian Master Plan ....................... 600,000

State of New Jersey Department of Motor Vehicle Services (NJ 

MVS) ................................................................................................... 300,000

Syracuse Lakefront Project, New York ................................................ 1,000,000

Tiverton Stone Bridge abutment repairs and beautification, Rhode 

Island .................................................................................................. 100,000

Toulon Township, Illinois ...................................................................... 100,000

Traffic calming devices and pedestrian streetscape improvements, 

Windemere, Florida ........................................................................... 325,000

Traffic Calming Devices, Winter Park, Florida ................................... 325,000

Trinity River Visions, Texas ................................................................. 500,000

Urban Education Development Research and Retreat Center, 

Transportation Education and Career Institute, Pennsylvania ..... 100,000

VA Cemetery Road, Mobile, Alabama .................................................. 750,000

Village of Dieterich Industrial Park Road, Illinois ............................. 100,000

Wichita Riverwalk on Arkansas River, Kansas .................................. 100,000

Wisconsin 29 and Marathon County Y Intersection ........................... 500,000

Performance based outcomes.—The Committee recognizes the impact the performance based outcomes can have on the road building industry by allowing contractors the freedom and flexibility to 

focus on quality and long term performance and encourage the Department of Transportation to further explore their use. 

Rural consultation.—During the past two years, the Committee 

has repeatedly expressed its concern about the lack of progress 

FHWA has made in promulgating final rules that assure a clearly 

defined and strong role for rural local elected officials in the statewide transportation planning and programming processes, as set 

forth in 1998 in TEA–21. The Committee is particularly displeased 

with the supplemental notice published in the Federal Register on 

June 19, 2002. While the Committee understands that this notice 

represents an implementation option besides the May 25, 2000 proposal, it is a proposal that falls far short of the congressional intent. It essentially retains the status quo by allowing state officials 

to determine which local officials they choose to consult, meaning 

101

rural local elected officials in many states would continue to be left 

out of vital transportation planning and programming decisions. 

The Committee remains firm that FHWA should immediately promulgate final rules that closely resemble the May 25, 2000 proposal. 

Large Project Management and Oversight.—As evidenced by the 

high profile difficulties that have plagued the Central Artery, 

Woodrow Wilson Bridge, and Springfield Interchange projects—including dramatic cost increases and significant schedule delays— the need for improvement of FHWA’s financial oversight and accountability on large projects cannot be overemphasized. Although 

the FHWA has made notable progress in converting these difficulties into constructive catalysts for change, the Committee remains 

concerned about project management. The Inspector General has 

noted that FHWA’s traditional engineering focus has inhibited the 

effective scrutiny of other major project drivers such as financing, 

cost controls, and schedule performance. To successfully refocus on 

the evaluation of each state’s processes for managing and overseeing projects, the FHWA will need to evaluate the range of disciplines and skills within its staff. Specifically, the Committee directs the FHWA to develop a strategy for achieving a more multidisciplinary approach towards its oversight activities, to include: 

identification of staff with private sector management skills, such 

as financing and cost estimation; streamlining and delegation of 

project-level approvals to facilitate greater emphasis upon oversight of higher-level management and financial issues; and implementation of a planned data collection system for trend analysis. 

The Committee directs FHWA to deliver this strategy no later than 

March 3, 2003. 

Ambassador Bridge.—The Committee appropriated substantial 

funds for critically important direct access improvements between 

the Ambassador Bridge/Gateway Project, as authorized in Section 

1217(b) of Public Law 105–178. In obligating all authorized and appropriated funds for the project, the Committee expects that the 

Federal Highway Administration shall ensure that such funds are 

used only for the Ambassador Bridge/Gateway Project. Specifically, 

the original scope and intent of the Gateway Project was and continues to permit direct access and relief from traffic congestion between the Ambassador Bridge and the trunkline system, including 

on- and off-ramps to and from Interstates I–75 and I–96; for local 

road access improvements to Porter, 21st and other streets in the 

neighboring community; to accommodate access to meet future border crossing capacity needs and protect plans identified by the Ambassador Bridge, including a second span of the Ambassador 

Bridge; to accommodate access to a proposed Visitor’s Center/Retail 

Complex on the U.S.-side of the Ambassador Bridge; and for other 

planning and environmental initiatives needed to ensure access improvements and connectivity to the Ambassador Bridge. 

Rural road safety.—The most dangerous automobile travel occurs 

on two-lane roads. Accident rates on rural two-lane roads are double the rates on interstate highways and, in 1999, 77.1% of highway fatalities occurred on two-land roads. The Committee directs 

the General Accounting Office to review Federal funding of rural 

road safety improvements and whether some interstate design 

characteristics could improve rural road safety. The GAO is to inVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
102

clude cost estimates for improvements to rural road safety and 

should submit this report one year from the date of enactment of 

this act. 

Interstate 49 South, Louisiana.—The Committee understands 

there is conflicting data regarding the alignment of future Interstate 49 south below Interstate 10 and directs the Secretary to review alternative routes, such as the Teche Ridge route. The Committee believes that a careful review of alignment alternatives 

could provide significant savings to the taxpayer while eliminating 

a number of environmental concerns. The Committee directs that 

this review be done concurrent with planning, design and construction in other areas of U.S. 90 and not prevent progress or delay 

completion of this upgrade. 

Costa Mesa, California Susan Street Project.—The Committee directs the Secretary to review the ‘‘Harbor Boulevard North OffRamp from (I–405 Northbound Distributor Road to Susan Street’’

project in the city of Costa Mesa, California. The review should include the impacts this construction project would have with regard 

to operational and safety implications and other federal requirements. The results shall be submitted to the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations 90 days from the enactment of this 

Act. 

Projects.—In addition to the aforemention projects, funds shall be 

available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount 

Chinese Community Center—Chinatown Study, New York .............. $500,000

Clay/Leslie Industrial Park Access, Kentucky .................................... 430,000

Detroit city center study, Michigan ...................................................... 300,000

Highway 21, Missouri ............................................................................ 340,000

Honeybranch Regional Business Park Access Road, Kentucky ......... 1,650,000

Mobile Port, Waterfront and Transportation Initiative/Maritime 

Center of the Gulf of Mexico, Alabama ............................................ 1,000,000

Pearl and Leaf Rivers Rails-to-Trails Recreational District 

‘‘Longleaf Trace,’’ Mississippi ............................................................ 360,000

Phalen Boulevard, Minnesota ............................................................... 500,000

Southeast Main Avenue / 20th /21st Street Railroad Grade Separation Project, Minnesota ...................................................................... 500,000

(RESCISSIONS) 

The Committee includes rescissions of appropriations and contract authorizations of $5,609,337 in unobligated balances from 

completed highway projects in previous highway authorization and 

appropriations Acts. 

APPALACHIAN, DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ......................................................... $200,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ....................................................... ............................

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 100,000,000

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .................................................. ¥100,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................ ............................

The Committee recommendation includes $100,000,000 for the 

Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). The amount 

is $100,000,000 less than the level provided in fiscal year 2002. 

Funding for this initiative is authorized under section 1069(y) of 

Public Law 102–240. The ADHS program provides funds for the 

103

construction of the Appalachian corridor highways in the 13 states 

that comprise the Appalachian region. 

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2003 PROGRAM

In November 1999, the Congress passed the Motor Carrier Safety 

Improvement Act (P.L. 106–159), which established the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) within the Department of Transportation. Prior to this legislation, motor carrier safety responsibilities were housed within the Federal Highway Administration. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act (MCSIA) 

formed a new administration that placed truck and bus safety on 

par with other modes of transportation. 

The primary mission of FMCSA is to improve the safety of commercial vehicle operations on our nation’s highways. To accomplish 

this mission, the FMCSA is focused on reducing the number and 

severity of large truck crashes. Agency resources and activities contribute to ensuring safety in commercial vehicle operations through 

enforcement, including the use of stronger enforcement measures 

against safety violators; expedited safety regulation; technology innovation; improvements in information systems; training; and improvements to commercial driver’s license testing, record keeping, 

and sanctions. To accomplish these activities, FMCSA works closely 

with federal, state, and local enforcement agencies, the motor carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and individual citizens. 

In addition, FMCSA has the responsibility to ensure that Mexican 

Commercial Vehicles, entering the U.S. in accordance with the 

North American Free Trade Agreement, meet all U.S. hazardous 

material and safety regulations. 

MCSIA and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century 

(TEA–21) provide funding authorizations for FMCSA, including administrative expenses, motor carrier research and technology, the 

national motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) and the 

information systems and strategic safety initiatives (ISSSI). 

FMCSA’s scope was expanded in fiscal year 2002 by the U.S.A. Patriot Act (P.L. 107–56), which called for new security measures. In 

addition, the fiscal year 2002 Appropriations Act (P.L. 107–87) increased border enforcement and safety related activities associated 

with implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement. 

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

The motor carrier safety account provides salaries, expenses, research, and safety program funding for the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act 

of 1999 (MCSIA) amended section 104(a)(1) of title 23 to deduct one 

third of one percent from specified Federal-aid program funds to 

fund personnel, and to administer motor carrier safety programs 

and motor carrier research. This mechanism is known as a ‘‘takedown.’’ Because the resulting funding level does not cover current 

104

personnel on board, important safety-related programs, and safety 

research, the budget request proposed to amend title 23 and increase the takedown to 45/100 of one percent. The Committee 

agrees that the TEA–21 and MCSIA did not provide sufficient flexibility for motor carrier safety funding requirements. The 

$92,857,000 resulting from the takedown required by TEA–21 

would require reductions to important programs, which would compromise safety. Therefore, instead of increasing the takedown percentage, the Committee provides an additional $24,587,000 from 

the highway trust fund for a total $117,444,000 for motor carrier 

administration, safety, and research programs, consistent with the 

amount requested.

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 1 ..................................................... ($110,000,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 2 ................................................... (117,444,000) 

Recommended in the bill 3 ............................................................... (92,857,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ (¥17,143,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 .............................................. (¥24,587,000) 1Does not reflect reduction of $158,000 pursuant to section 349 of P.L. 107–87 as amended by section 

1106 of P.L. 107–117. 2 Excludes $2,995,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals requested in the FY 2003 President’s Budget. 3 Excludes $24,587,000 in direct appropriations. 

The recommended level assumes the following adjustments to the 

budget request:

Deny FECA administrative costs ......................................................... ¥$19,800

Increase hazardous materials safety and security .............................. +500,000

Undistributed reduction ........................................................................ ¥500,000

The Committee has provided $92,857,000 for the motor carrier 

safety account from the limitation on administrative expenses, plus 

an additional direct appropriation of $24,587,000 for a total funding level of $117,444,000. Of the total provided, $110,444,000 is for 

operating expenses and $7,000,000 is for research and technology 

initiatives. 

FECA administrative costs.—The Committee has reduced funding by $19,800 from the budget request for workers compensation 

administrative costs as explained in this report. 

Hazardous materials safety and security.—The Committee pro- vides a total of $758,000, $500,000 above the budget request, to assess hazardous materials security and incident risks to meet national security and safety needs, and to develop strategies to minimize risks of transporting hazardous materials. 

Share the road program.—Statistics for 1999 show that 78 percent of all fatal truck crashes are collisions between large trucks 

and other vehicles. Data from 1998 indicate that in approximately 

81 percent of fatal crashes between large trucks and other vehicles, 

the passenger vehicle driver was found to be at fault. The safety 

community asserts that the share the road program’s main campaign, focused on warning noncommercial drivers to avoid truck 

blind spots is not effective. The Committee directs the General Accounting Office to evaluate the effectiveness of the Share the Road 

program and submit the study to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by April 1, 2003. 

Commercial drivers license program.—The Committee includes 

$10,000,000, consistent with the budget request, for the commercial 

drivers license (CDL) program from the office of motor carrier safeVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
105

ty. For many years, the Committee has stated that more work 

needs to be done to address deficiencies in the CDL program and 

the Committee continues to strongly encourage the use of MCSAP 

funding for programs that enhance state driver record information 

systems, to speed the entry of convictions onto the driving record 

and ensure that records are complete. The 2002 supplemental appropriations act (P.L. 107–206) provided an additional $17,300,000 

to correct flaws in the CDL program, including funds to complete 

background checks on CDL drivers as directed by the U.S.A. Patriot Act, and to develop and implement fraud detection and prevention techniques for state licensing and enforcement agencies. 

The Committee is concerned that the final ruling implementing the 

U.S.A. Patriot Act requirements has yet to be issued. 

The Inspector General included recommendations in its May 8, 

2002 report, Improving testing and licensing of commercial drivers,

to strengthen state CDL programs and to improve FMCSA’s oversight of the programs. The Committee urges FMCSA to implement 

these recommendations in a timely fashion. 

Within the funds provided for the CDL program, FMCSA should 

continue working with the American Association of Motor Vehicle 

Administrators, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, lead 

MCSAP agencies and licensing agencies to improve all aspects of 

the CDL program. In addition, FMCSA should consider sponsoring 

another pilot project involving law enforcement and driver licensing 

agencies to explore new and innovative ways to ensure that drivers 

who have been convicted of a disqualifying offense do not operate 

during the period of suspension or revocation. Finally, FMCSA 

should continue to support the judicial and prosecutorial outreach 

effort. 

Untethered truck trailer tracking and security.—Truck trailers 

pose a significant potential security threat since they provide an 

easy means to transport dangerous cargoes. In addition, the inability to track freight movements causes inefficiencies in the intermodal freight transportation system, increasing operating costs and 

congestion, and decreasing safety, economic competitiveness, and 

air quality. While commercially available technology can track a 

trailer when it is tethered to a cab, commercially available technologies are needed to track and control an untethered trailer. 

Within the funds provided for FMCSA’s limitation on administrative expenses and high priority initiative program, the Committee 

has provided $2,000,000 to leverage existing technology and develop an untethered trailer tracking and control system that will 

provide real-time trailer identification, location, geofensing, unscheduled movement notification, door sensors, and alarms. 

Solid waste shippers.—Interstate truck shipments of solid waste 

are subject to all of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety regulations 

and standards as well as each state’s Environmental Agency’s regulations. Although garbage, refuse, and trash carriers account for 3 

percent of the fatal truck crashes, preliminary information from the 

motor carrier management information system indicate that these 

carriers have a 5 percent higher vehicle out of service rate in fiscal 

year 2002 as compared to the overall truck population. Therefore, 

the Committee directs FMCSA to work with the Commonwealth of 

Virginia’s MCSAP agency and conduct three one-day concentrated 

roadside inspections strike forces on interstate waste haulers. If 

106

the safety data warrants, the agency shall notify and advise other 

states of safety concerns regarding motor carriers domiciled in that 

state so they may take appropriate action. The reviews conducted 

shall be compiled and analyzed in a letter submitted to the House 

and Senate Committees on Appropriations before July 1, 2003. 

Truck crash causation study.—The Committee understands that 

a committee empanelled by NHTSA and the FMCSA for review of 

the Truck Crash Causation Study (TCCS) has transmitted a number of memorandums to FMCSA detailing several major concerns 

and misgivings about the basic design and conduct of the TCCS. 

The Committee understands that FMCSA has taken the concerns 

of this panel into account and has made numerous changes to its 

forms, procedures, and research design. The Committee directs that 

this revised research design be reviewed by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and published for public comment. BTS’s review shall be provided to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations. 

NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRAM

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(Liquidation of contract 

authorization) 

(Limitation on obligations) 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 1 ............... ($205,896,000) ($205,896,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............... (190,000,000) (190,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................ (190,000,000) (190,000,000) 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .......... (¥15,896,000) (¥15,896,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ........ ................................ ................................

1 $23,896,000 was provided from revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) as authorized in FY2002. 

The FMCSA’s national motor carrier safety program (NMCSP) 

was authorized by TEA–21 and amended by the Motor Carrier 

Safety Improvement Act of 1999. This program consists of two 

major areas: the motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) 

and the information systems and strategic safety initiatives (ISSSI) 

program. MCSAP provides grants and project funding to states to 

develop and implement national programs for the uniform enforcement of federal and state rules and regulations concerning motor 

carrier safety. The major objective of this program is to reduce the 

number and severity of accidents involving commercial motor vehicles. Grants are made to qualified states for the development of 

programs to enforce the federal motor carrier safety and hazardous 

materials regulations and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act 

of 1986. The basic program is targeted at roadside vehicle safety 

inspections of both interstate and intrastate commercial motor vehicle traffic. ISSSI provides funds to develop and enhance data-related motor carrier programs. 

The Committee recommends $190,000,000 in liquidating cash for 

this program. 

107

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 

$190,000,000 for the national motor carrier safety program. This is 

the level authorized under the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement 

Act of 1999, which amended TEA–21. Although this is a reduction 

compared to fiscal year 2002 funding, a total of $23,896,000 was 

due to revenue aligned budget authority available in 2002. Therefore, the fiscal year 2003 funding level is an increase of $8,000,000 

from the underlying authorization of $182,000,000 for NMCSP in 

fiscal year 2002. 

The Committee recommends the allocation of funds as follows:

Motor carrier safety assistance program ............................................. $170,000,000 

Basic motor carrier safety grants .................................................. (130,329,000) 

Performance based incentive grant program ............................... (16,108,000) 

Border assistance ............................................................................ (8,250,000) 

High-priority activities ................................................................... (8,250,000) 

State training and administration ................................................ (2,063,000) 

Crash causation (Sec. 224(f) MCSIA) ............................................ (5,000,000) 

Information systems and strategic safety initiatives .......................... 20,000,000 

Information systems ....................................................................... (5,200,000) 

Motor carrier analysis .................................................................... (8,800,000) 

Implementation of PRISM ............................................................. (5,000,000) 

Driver programs ............................................................................. (1,000,000)

BORDER ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Enacted in 1993 and entered into force in 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was based on the premise 

that all of the countries in North America would be integrated into 

one free trade area. Under NAFTA’s original timeline, the U.S. and 

Mexico agreed to permit commercial vehicle access to each other’s 

border states by December 18, 1995. Reciprocal access beyond the 

border states was promised by January 1, 2000. (Canadian carriers 

have been operating throughout the United States since 1982.) The 

NAFTA timetable also called for the United States and Mexico to 

lift all restrictions on regular route, scheduled cross-border bus 

service by January 1, 1997. 

In December 1995, the prior administration postponed implementation of NAFTA cross-border trucking provisions, which continued 

to limit Mexican trucks to operations in designated commercial 

zones within Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. A 

NAFTA arbitration panel concluded in February 2001 that the U.S. 

blanket refusal to process the applications of Mexican carriers 

seeking U.S. authority because of concerns over the carriers’ safety 

was in breach of its NAFTA obligations. The current administration has assured Mexico that the U.S. will move in a timely manner to meet NAFTA obligations. 

In February 2001, the Administration announced it would fully 

comply with NAFTA obligations regarding truck and bus access. 

Concerns regarding safety compliance and monitoring of Mexicandomiciled commercial vehicles were resolved in Section 350 of the 

Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002 

(P.L. 107–87), and a total of $139,832,000 was provided for border 

safety enforcement in FY 2002 under Federal Highway Administration and FMCSA appropriations, including: $17,666,000 under the 

108

Motor Carrier Safety limitation on administrative expenses; 

$28,000,000 for state operations grants under the national motor 

carrier safety program account; $25,866,00 under section 350; and 

$68,300,000 for inspection station construction and land acquisition 

under FHWA coordinated border infrastructure program. 

The Administration has affirmed its commitment to open the border to Mexican-domiciled commercial vehicles and to implement a 

regime of regulations to ensure safety. DOT has been inspecting 

Mexican trucks and buses at the border since 1995, and in fiscal 

year 2003, FMCSA’s border enforcement program will support 274 

Federal border enforcement personnel, more than four times the 

number at the border in fiscal year 2001.

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 1 ....................................................... $25,866,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 2 ..................................................... 59,967,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 59,967,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .................................................. +34,101,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................ (0) 1Does not include $19,300,000 in emergency supplemental funding provided in P.L. 107–206 to implement 

the USA Patriot Act and for other security-related programs. 2Does not include CSRS/FEHB accruals of $941,000 requested in the FY 2003 President’s Budget. 

Consistent with the budget request, the Committee recommends $41,967,000 for Federal border enforcement staffing and operations 

and $18,000,000 for state operations grants to the southern borderstates. 

Additional border enforcement related funding is also provided in this bill including $8,250,000 for state operations grants under the 

national motor carrier safety program account and $47,000,000 for 

inspection station construction from FHWA’s limitation on administrative expenses. Dedicated funding for border safety in FY 2003 

totals $115,217,000. 

The Committee has extended a provision from the fiscal year 

2002 appropriations act regarding the safety of cross-border trucking between the United States and Mexico. While the safety of 

Mexico-domiciled trucks operating in the United States commercial 

zones has improved over the past year as measured by out of service order rates, the Committee expects FMCSA and DOT to continue to closely monitor the safety and security of all Mexico-domiciled motor carriers operating within the United States. The Committee directs that the Secretary report annually on the safety and 

security of the United States southern border with regard to motor 

carrier transportation into the United States by Mexico-domiciled 

motor carriers. 

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2003 PROGRAM

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 

was established as a separate organizational entity in the Department of Transportation in March 1970. It succeeded the National 

Highway Safety Bureau, which previously had administered traffic 

and highway safety functions as an organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration. The administration’s current programs are authorized in four major laws: (1) the National Traffic 

and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (chapter 301 of title 49, U.S.C.); (2) 

the Highway Safety Act (chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C.); (3) the Motor 

109

Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (MVICSA) (Part C of 

subtitle VI of title 49, U.S.C.); and (4) the Transportation Equity 

Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21). 

The first law provides for the establishment and enforcement of 

safety standards for vehicles and associated equipment and the 

conduct of supporting research, including the acquisition of required testing facilities and the operation of the national driver 

register (NDR). Discrete authorizations were subsequently established for the NDR under the National Driver Register Act of 1982. 

The second law provides for coordinated national highway safety 

programs (section 402) to be carried out by the states and for highway safety research, development, and demonstration programs 

(section 403). The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100– 690) authorized a new drunk driving prevention program (section 

410) to make grants to states to implement and enforce drunk driving prevention programs. 

The third law (MVICSA) provides for the establishment of lowspeed collision bumper standards, consumer information activities, 

diagnostic inspection demonstration projects, automobile content 

labeling, and odometer regulations. An amendment to this law established the Secretary’s responsibility, which was delegated to 

NHTSA, for the administration of mandatory automotive fuel economy standards. A 1992 amendment to the MVICSA established 

automobile content labeling requirements. 

The fourth law (TEA–21) reauthorizes the full range of NHTSA 

programs and enacts a number of new initiatives. These include: 

safety incentives to prevent operation of motor vehicles by intoxicated persons (section 163 of title 23 U.S.C.); seat belt incentive 

grants (section 157 of title 23 U.S.C.); occupant protection incentive 

grants (section 405); and a highway safety data improvement incentive grant program (section 411). TEA–21 also reauthorized 

highway safety research, development and demonstration programs 

(section 403) to include research measures that may deter drugged 

driving, educate the motoring public on how to share the road safely with commercial motor vehicles, and provide vehicle pursuit 

training for police. Finally, TEA–21 adopts a number of new motor 

vehicle safety and information provisions, including rulemaking directions for improving air bag crash protection systems, lobbying 

restrictions, exemptions from the odometer requirements for classes or categories of vehicles the Secretary deems appropriate, and 

adjustments to the automobile domestic content labeling requirements. 

In 2000, the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, 

and Documentation (TREAD) Act amended the National Traffic 

and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in numerous respects and enacted 

many new initiatives. These consist of a number of new motor vehicle safety and information provisions, including a requirement that 

manufacturers give NHTSA notice of safety recalls or safety campaigns in foreign countries involving motor vehicles or items of 

motor vehicle equipment that are identical or substantially similar 

to vehicles or equipment in the United States; higher civil penalties 

for violations of the law; a criminal penalty for violations of the 

law’s reporting requirements; and a number of rulemaking directions that include developing a dynamic rollover test for light duty 

vehicles, updating the tire safety and labeling standards, improving 

110

the safety of child restraints, and establishing a child restraint 

safety rating consumer information program. 

TRAFFIC SAFETY TRENDS

After dipping to a low of 39,250 in 1992, the nation over the past 

five years has experienced a fairly constant number of traffic related fatalities at or just below 42,000 per year. The latest NHTSA 

estimates indicate fatalities in 2001 were 42,116, which is marginally more than the 41,945 traffic related deaths in 2000. However, 

motorcycle rider deaths continued to increase, with 3,181 riders 

killed in 2001 compared to 2,897 in 2000. Additionally, passenger 

car fatalities were down, 20,233 in 2001 compared to 20,699 in 

2000, whereas fatalities in light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles increased, 11,677 in 2001 compared to 11,526 in 2000. In comparing 2000 to 2001, the number of police-reported nonfatal crashes reduced from 6,356,000 in 2000 to 6,285,000 in 2001. The number of injured persons declined significantly from 3,189,000 in 2000 

to 3,033,000 in 2001. The fatality rate in 2001 has declined to 1.52 

deaths per 100,000,000 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from 1.53 

deaths in 2000. The following graphs show the safety trends for 

total fatalities and the fatality rate for the past two decades.

111


Insert offset folio 028 here 82170.001
112

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

(General fund) (Highway trust fund) 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ................. $127,780,000 $74,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 1 ............. 126,445,000 74,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ............................ 131,433,000 74,000,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .......... +3,653,000 ................................

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ........ +4,988,000 ................................

1 Excludes $4,437,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals. 

For fiscal year 2003, the Administration requested a total of $200,445,000 for NHTSA’s operations and research activities. 

Funding was to be allocated from three different accounts. First, 

the Administration requested $72,000,000 of contract authority 

from the highway trust fund to finance NHTSA’s operations and research activities under 23 U.S.C. 403. This funding is included 

within the firewall guarantee for highway spending. Second, the 

Administration requested $126,445,000 from the general fund for 

operations and research activities under sections 30102 and 30104 

of title 49 U.S.C. Third, the budget included an authorization from 

the highway trust fund of $2,000,000 for the National Driver Register. The latter two requests are subject to appropriations. 

The Committee recommends new budget authority and obligation limitations for a total program level of $205,433,000, a two percent 

increase above fiscal year 2002. Of this total, $131,433,000 is for 

operations and research from the general fund; $72,000,000 is for 

23 U.S.C. 403 activities from the highway trust fund; and 

$2,000,000 is for the National Driver Register from the highway 

trust fund. This is essentially a current services budget, with a few 

minor exceptions. The funding shall be distributed as follows:

Salaries and benefits ............................................................................. $63,316,000 

Travel ...................................................................................................... 1,324,000 

Operating expenses ............................................................................... 22,949,000 

Contract programs: 

Safety performance ......................................................................... 10,393,000 

Safety assurance ............................................................................. 15,760,000 

Highway safety programs .............................................................. 41,163,000 

Research and analysis .................................................................... 61,021,000 

General administration .................................................................. 657,000 

Grant administration reimbursements ................................................ ¥11,150,000

Total ............................................................................................. 205,433,000 

Reorganization.—NHTSA reorganized in fiscal year 2002. The objectives of the reorganization were two-fold. First, the reorganization sought to improve internal management of the behavioral and 

vehicle safety programs by better aligning resources with responsibilities. Second, the reorganization was directed at improving 

communication and coordination with external partners, especially 

with State and local highway organizations. Because funding was 

not altered among the salaries and benefits or contract programs, 

the department was not required to submit a reprogramming request for Congressional approval. 

The Committee is aware of extensive dissatisfaction and a significant drop in morale following the reorganization. While temporary dissatisfaction can be expected when programs and responsibilities are altered, if low morale and a resulting decline in program effectiveness continues into fiscal year 2003, the AdminisVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
113

trator should be prepared to address the negative results of this reorganization during the fiscal year 2004 hearing cycle. 

FECA administrative costs.—The Committee has denied the 

FECA administrative costs included in the budget request 

(¥$12,000). This policy is consistent across all modal administrations funded in this bill. 

Seat belts.—In February 2002, the Department revised its unrealistic seat belt usage goals from 85 percent in 2000 and 90 percent 

in 2005 to 78 percent in 2003. Over the past few years, NHTSA has 

worked aggressively with states to increase the seat belt usage 

rates, up from the mid-60s to 73 percent in 2001. Most notably, the 

‘‘Click it or Ticket’’ program,which involves high visibility enforcement by multiple law enforcement agencies combined with extensive media coverage of the program, has dramatically increased 

seat belt usage rates. For the 49 states that participated in the 

May 2002 mobilization, preliminary data shows that there was a 

significant increase in seat belt usage. For example, Vermont 

showed a 19 percent increase and West Virginia had a 15 percent 

increase. The Committee applauds these increases, but NHTSA 

should not rest on its laurels. A highly visible and sustained seat 

belt campaign must continue throughout 2003 if the agency hopes 

to reach the 78 percent goal. The Committee directs NHTSA not 

to divert funds from these efforts to other activities. 

State data safety grants.—Included within the total for research 

and analysis is $3,000,000 for state data safety grants. The Committee is strongly supportive of continuing the state highway data 

safety improvements program in fiscal year 2003. This program 

was authorized by TEA–21 only through fiscal year 2002. Most 

states have applied for these grants in the past and funding has 

been used to improve the timeliness, accuracy, uniformity, and accessibility of state data that is used by the federal government, 

states and localities to improve highway and traffic safety programs. These funds can also be used to improve the compatibility 

of state data with national data systems and/or data systems in 

other states, which enhances NHTSA’s ability to observe and analyze national trends in accident and fatality rates. A failure to continue this program may limit future improvements states may 

make to their data systems, due to a lack of funding, and may reduce NHTSA’s ability to compare state data nationwide. It is the 

Committee’s understanding that NHTSA plans to request the continuation of this grant program during reauthorization next year, 

which makes fiscal year 2003 funding critical to prevent a gap in 

the program. 

Crash causation study.—The Committee has provided $2,000,000 

for NHTSA to begin updating its 23 year old crash causation study. 

While NHTSA continues to utilize the data from this old study, the 

information is clearly outdated. For example, the use of minivans, 

light trucks and sport utility vehicles were virtually nonexistent 23 

years ago; vehicle technologies, such as antilock braking systems 

and stability control systems, did not exist; and distracting devices, 

such as cell phones and in-vehicle navigation systems, had not 

been introduced. An updated study is necessary so that NHTSA 

can continue to work on achieving substantial reductions in highway fatalities and injuries, particularly in those hard to reach 

areas such as alcohol-related fatalities and motorcycle fatalities. 

114

This study will assist NHTSA researchers in identifying and creating new initiatives for their crash avoidance and countermeasures programs (i.e. those programs designed to develop new 

techniques to prevent crashes from occurring). The Committee believes it is imperative to begin this work in 2003 because NHTSA 

is in the process of completing a large truck crash causation study. 

Beginning a broader crash causation study as the truck study is 

concluding will reduce startup costs and shorten the timeframe for 

this follow-on work because NHTSA will be able to make use of the 

contract already in place. 

Impaired driving.—For the past two years, alcohol-related traffic 

fatalities have increased by the largest percentage on record. These 

increases are particularly disturbing because total alcohol-related 

traffic fatalities had dropped from 57 percent in 1982 to a low of 

38 percent in 1998. Now over 40 percent of all traffic fatalities are 

alcohol related. 

This summer, NHTSA has repeatedly announced that it will intensify its work in 2003 to reverse the trend in alcohol-related fatalities. However, after repeated questioning, the agency has been 

unable to explain what new initiatives will be undertaken. The bill 

fully funds the agency’s 2003 budget request for impaired driving 

(under section 403) as submitted in February. However the Committee expects NHTSA to revise this budget request to reflect the 

agency’s change in mission by November 2002 and inform the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations about these 

changes. Some areas that NHTSA may want to consider are: working more aggressively with states to reduce underage drinking, reinvigorating the court monitoring program, and working more 

closely with the judicial system (both judges and prosecutors) to increase penalties on drunk drivers. In addition, the Committee has 

included a general provision (sec 325) that allows $8,000,000 of the 

section 163 grant funds to be used for media messages on the dangers of alcohol-impaired driving, in hopes that these messages will 

be as successful as the seat belt messages procured with section 

157 grant funds. 

Point of sales training.—The Committee is concerned that many 

alcohol enforcement programs are overlooking the importance of 

proper education and training of point of sales employees. According to the Center for Substance Abuse and Prevention, responsible 

server training programs are most likely to succeed when servers 

and managers know that the law will be enforced, or realize that 

they have responsibility and may assume significant liability if 

they serve intoxicated or underage individuals. Point of sales education is the most effective means for disseminating accurate information to servers and managers. The Committee suggests that 

NHTSA evaluate including point of sales training as part of its impaired driving initiatives. 

Emergency medical services head injury research.—Within the 

funding provided for emergency medical services, $750,000 shall be 

used to continue training emergency medical service personnel in 

delivering prehospital care to patients with traumatic brain injuries. 

Improving ejection prevention measures.—Occupant ejection from 

motor vehicles continues to be a major safety problem. According 

to NHTSA, partial and complete ejections result in about 7,800 faVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
115

talities and 7,100 serious injuries annually. The agency has estimated that reducing the incidence of ejection using available safety 

technologies such as advanced side glazing, side air bags, and enhanced roof strength could save hundreds of lives. In its Vehicle 

Safety Rulemaking Priorities 2002–2005, which was issued July 25, 

2002, NHTSA identified both occupant ejection and upgraded roof 

crush resistance as ‘‘near term’’ regulatory priorities that the agency expects to undertake in 2002 and 2003. Consistent with this proposal, the Committee supports the adoption of measures to improve 

ejection prevention performance of motor vehicles no later than December 31, 2004, and recognizes that the agency may need to develop new test procedures. 

Motorcycles.—There was a continuous decline in motorcycle crash 

fatalities from the mid-1980s through 1997. Since 1997, motorcyclist fatalities have increased. The Committee understands that the 

demand for motorcycle training in the United States exceeds current capacity and that in some states motorcyclists must wait over 

six months to receive necessary training. This is despite the fact 

that in 1999 there were 192,122 people trained, close to 19 percent 

more than in 1998. Within the funding available to NHTSA, 

$500,000 shall be used for motorcycle training demonstration 

projects to enable states to develop ways to reduce their motorcycle 

training backlog.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(Liquidation of contract 

authorization) 

(Limitation on obligations) 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ................. $223,000,000 ($223,000,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............... 225,000,000 (225,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................ 225,000,000 (225,000,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .......... +2,000,000 (+2,000,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ........ ................................ ................................

TEA–21 authorized four state grant programs: the highway safety program, the alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grant 

program, the occupant protection incentive grant program, and the 

state highway safety data improvement grant program. Three of 

these grant programs continued in fiscal year 2003. The fourth— state highway safety data improvement grant program—was only 

authorized through 2002; however the Committee has provided 

funding under the operations and research account to continue this 

work in 2003. The Committee recommends $225,000,000 for liquidation of contract authorization, which is less than a one percent 

increase above the 2002 enacted level. 

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

As in past years and recommended in the budget request, the bill 

includes language limiting the obligations to be incurred under the 

various highway traffic safety grants programs. The bill includes 

separate obligation limitations with the following funding allocations: 

Highway safety programs ..................................................................... $165,000,000 

Occupant protection incentive grants .................................................. 20,000,000 

Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures ......................................... 40,000,000 

116

Highway safety grants.—These grants are awarded to states for 

the purpose of reducing traffic crashes, fatalities and injuries. The 

states may use the grants to implement programs to reduce deaths 

and injuries caused by exceeding posted speed limits; encourage 

proper use of occupant protection devices; reduce alcohol- and drugimpaired driving; reduce crashes between motorcycles and other vehicles; reduce school bus crashes; improve police traffic services; 

improve emergency medical services and trauma care systems; increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety; increase safety among older 

and younger drivers; and improve roadway safety. The grants also 

provide additional support for state data collection and reporting of 

traffic deaths and injuries. An obligation limitation of $165,000,000 is included in the bill, 

which is the same amount as requested. The national occupant protection survey shall be funded within this total. Also, language is 

included in the bill that limits funding available for federal grants 

administration from this program to $8,150,000. 

Occupant protection incentive grants.—The Committee has fully 

funded the occupant protection incentive grant program at 

$20,000,000. States may qualify for this grant program by implementing 4 of the following 6 laws and programs: (1) a law requiring 

safety belt use in any seat in the vehicle; (2) a safety belt use law 

providing for primary enforcement; (3) minimum fines or penalty 

points for seat belt and child seat use law violations; (4) special 

traffic enforcement programs for occupant protection; (5) a child 

passenger protection education program; and (6) a child passenger 

protection law which requires minors to be properly secured. Language is included in the bill that limits funding available for federal grants administration from this program to $1,000,000. 

In addition to the occupant protection incentive grant program, 

TEA–21 established a safety incentive grant program (section 157) 

to encourage states to increase seat belt usage. The grant program 

totals $500,000,000 over six years. Allocations of federal grants require determinations of (1) seat belt use rates and improvements 

and (2) federal medical cost savings attributable to increased seat 

belt use. States that meet the section 157 requirements can use 

funds for any purpose under title 23, including highway construction, highway safety, and intelligent transportation systems. 

NHTSA and FHWA are jointly administering this program. 

NHTSA will collect the state data and determine the allocation of 

funds. 

Alcohol-impaired driving incentive grants.—These grants will 

offer two-tiered basic and supplemental grants to reward states 

that pass new laws and start more effective programs to attack 

drunk and impaired driving. States may qualify for basic grants in 

two ways. First, they can implement 5 of the following 7 laws and 

programs: (1) administrative license revocation; (2) programs to 

prevent drivers under age 21 from obtaining alcoholic beverages; 

(3) intensive impaired driving law enforcement; (4) graduated licensing law with nighttime driving restrictions and zero tolerance; 

(5) drivers with high blood alcohol content (BAC); (6) young adult 

programs to reduce impaired driving by individuals ages 21–34; (7) 

a rate of testing for BAC of drivers in fatal crashes that is above 

the national average. Second, they can demonstrate a reduction in 

alcohol involved fatality rates in each of the last three years for 

117

which Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) data is available 

and demonstrate rates lower than the national average for each of 

the last three years. Supplemental grants are provided to states 

that adopt additional measures, including videotaping of drunk 

drivers by police; self-sustaining impaired driving programs; laws 

to reduce driving with suspended licenses; use of passive alcohol 

sensors by police; a system for tracking information on drunk drivers; and other innovative programs. The Committee has provided 

$40,000,000 for these grants in fiscal year 2003. Language is included in the bill that limits funding available for federal grants 

administration from this program to $2,000,000. 

In addition to the alcohol-impaired driving incentive grant program, TEA–21 authorized $500,000,000 in grants over six years for 

states that have enacted and are enforcing a 0.08 BAC law (section 

163). For each fiscal year a state meets this criterion, it will receive 

a grant in the same ratio in which it receives section 402 funds. 

The states may use these funds for any project eligible for assistance under title 23 (e.g. highway construction, bridge repair, highway safety, etc.). This grant program encourages states to adopt 

and enforce more strigent anti-drunk driving legislation. 

Bill language.—The bill contains two provisions that pertain to 

NHTSA’s highway safety grant programs. First, language is continued that prohibits the use of funds for construction, rehabilitation, 

and remodeling costs or for office furnishings or fixtures for state, 

local, or private buildings or structures. Second, language is continued that limits the amount available for technical assistance to 

$500,000 of funds provided to implement section 410. 

General provision.—The Committee continued a general provision (sec. 325), that was included for the first time in fiscal year 

2001, which allows section 402 funds to be used to produce and 

place highway safety public service messages in television, radio, 

cinema, print media, and on the internet. In addition the provision 

was modified to allow up to $8,000,000 of the funds provided for 

innovative seat belt programs (section 157 grants) and alcohol-impaired driving programs (section 163 grants) to be used by the 

States to purchase advertising to publicize seat belt enforcement efforts and on ways to reduce alcohol-related fatalities during one or 

more of the national mobilization campaigns. The language also 

provides up to $2,000,000 for the Administrator to evaluate the effectiveness of the States’ seat belt and alcohol programs that purchased such advertising. 

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION 

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2003 PROGRAM

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is responsible for 

planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve safe 

operating and mechanical practices in the railroad industry, as well 

as managing the high-speed ground transportation program. 

Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 

and other financial assistance programs to rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry’s physical plant are also administered 

by the FRA. 

The total recommended program level for the FRA for fiscal year 

2003 is $937,614,000, which is $285,349,000 (43 percent) more than 

118

requested. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2002 program levels, the fiscal year 2003 program requests and the Committee’s recommendations:

Program Fiscal year 2002 enacted level 

Fiscal year 2003 request Recommended in the 

bill 

Safety and operations ............................................................... 1 $116,857,000 3 $118,264,000 $117,363,000 

Safety and operations user fees .............................................. .............................. ¥45,000,000 ..............................

Railroad research and development ......................................... 29,000,000 28,325,000 27,325,000 

Railroad research and development user fees ........................ .............................. ¥14,000,000 ..............................

Next generation high speed rail ............................................... 32,300,000 23,200,000 30,450,000 

Alaska railroad .......................................................................... 20,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation ................ 2 826,476,000 1 521,476,000 762,476,000

Total ...................................................................................... 1,044,632,000 652,265,000 937,614,000

1 Includes $6,000,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations (P.L. 107–117). 2 Includes $100,000,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations (P.L 107–117) and $205,000,000 in supplemental appropriations (P.L. 107–206). 3 Excludes $4,625,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals. 

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 1 ................................................... $116,857,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 2 ................................................. 118,264,000 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................... 117,363,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .............................................. +506,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............................................ ¥901,000

1 Includes $6,000,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations (P.L. 107–117). 2 Excludes $3,625,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals. 

The safety and operations account provides support for FRA’s 

rail safety and passenger and freight program activities. Funding 

also supports salaries and expenses and other operating costs related to FRA staff and programs. 

A total of $117,363,000 has been allocated to safety and operations, which is 6 percent above the 2002 enacted level, when the 

$6,000,000 supplemental emergency appropriation is excluded. Of 

this total, $6,636,000 is available until expended. The following adjustments were made to the budget request:

Deny six new staff positions .......................................................... ¥$836,000 

Deny FECA administrative costs .................................................. ¥65,000 

New staff.—The Committee has denied six of the ten new staff 

requested in fiscal year 2003. Last year, the Committee approved 

26 new staff and an additional 4 staff in the emergency supplemental. To date, FRA has filled half (15) of these positions. Because of the length of time it has taken FRA to fill its 2002 positions, the Committee has deferred a substantial increase in new 

staff in 2003 until it is clearer that the previously approved and 

on board staff cannot fulfill some or all of the functions requested 

in 2003. 

FECA administrative costs.—The Committee has denied funding 

for FECA administrative costs included in the budget (¥$65,000). 

This policy is consistent across all modal administrations funded in 

this bill. 

User fees.—The Committee has denied the administration’s request to collect $45,000,000 in user fees for railroad safety activities. This request has not been authorized. Until such authorization occurs, the Committee will continue to fund railroad safety activities in the traditional manner.

119

Pierre, South Dakota.—To accommodate the anticipated rail traffic from the Powder River Basin through Pierre and Fort Pierre, 

SD, the Committee directs the Administrator to work with the 

State of South Dakota, the cities of Pierre and Fort Pierre, and 

other entities to facilitate the construction of a project that will reduce rail congestion, mitigate noise, and increase safety. The mitigation projects may include, but are not limited to, a rail bypass 

around Pierre and Fort Pierre, including a Missouri River crossing, 

or noise and grade crossing mitigation and other safety measures 

associated with the existing track. 

General provision.—The bill includes language pertaining to the 

use of previously appropriated local rail freight assistance funds in 

the State of Iowa. 

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ..................................................... $29,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................... 28,325,000 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................... 27,325,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .............................................. ¥1,675,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............................................ ¥1,000,000

The railroad research and development appropriation finances 

contract research activities as well as salaries and expenses necessary for supervisory, management, and administrative functions. 

The objectives of this program are to reduce the frequency and severity of railroad accidents and to provide technical support for rail 

safety rulemaking and enforcement activities. 

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $27,325,000, 

which is $1,000,000 less than requested. The following adjustments 

were made to the budget request:

Train control ................................................................................... $750,000 

Transportation Technology Center ............................................... ¥250,000

Train control.—The Committee has reduced funding for testing 

and evaluation of train control systems under this account 

(¥$750,000). Under the next generation high-speed rail account, 

the Committee has provided $9,000,000 for train control projects 

and evaluations. It is unclear how this research funding differs 

from work being done by FRA under the next generation highspeed rail account. 

Transportation Technology Center (TTC).—The Committee has 

provided a total of $675,000 for site improvements at the Transportation Technology Center. While this is only half of the increase requested (+$250,000), it should provide ample resources for the refurbishment and replacement of facilities and equipment at the 

Center in Pueblo, Colorado. 

University of Nebraska and Marshall University projects.—The 

Committee continues to support the track and structures research 

being conducted at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Marshall University. A total of $500,000 has been provided for these 

efforts in fiscal year 2003. 

User fees.—The Committee has denied the administration’s request to collect $14,000,000 in user fees for railroad research and 

development activities. This request has not been authorized. Until 

such authorization occurs, the Committee will continue to fund 

120

railroad research and development activities in the traditional 

manner. 

RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

TEA–21 establishes a railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing loan and loan guarantee program. The aggregate unpaid 

principal amounts of the obligations may not exceed $3.5 billion at 

any one time. Not less than $1 billion is reserved for projects primarily benefiting freight railroads other than class I carriers. The 

funding may be used: (1) to acquire, improve, or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities, including track, components 

of track, bridges, yards, buildings, or shops; (2) to refinance existing debt; or (3) to develop and establish new intermodal or railroad 

facilities. No federal appropriation is required since a non-federal 

infrastructure partner may contribute the subsidy amount required 

by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form of a credit risk premium. Once received, statutorily established investigation charges 

are immediately available for appraisals and necessary determinations and findings. 

The Committee has included bill language specifying that no new 

direct loans or loan guarantee commitments may be made using 

federal funds for the payment of any credit premium amount during fiscal year 2003, as requested. 

PENNSYLVANIA STATION REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Funds are being used to redevelop Pennsylvania Station in New 

York City, which involves renovating the James A. Farley Post Office building into a train station and commercial center, and basic 

upgrades to Pennsylvania Station. In fiscal year 2000, Public Law 

106–113 provided an advance appropriation totaling $60,000,000 of 

which $20,000,000 was allocated to fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 

2003. The Committee has provided the advanced appropriation, 

which fulfills the federal commitment to this project. 

The Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corporation has had 

significant problems with the proposed renovation of the James A. 

Farley Post Office building so that it can be used as a transportation facility and alleviate congestion at the adjacent Pennsylvania Station. However, after much effort, it appears that this 

project may finally get off the drawing board. Currently, the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corporation and the United States 

Post Office are negotiating an agreement through which the State 

of New York would purchase a portion of the James A. Farley Post 

Office building, which will then be converted largely into Amtrakbased facilities. It is the Committee’s understanding that the U.S. 

Postal Service will retain ownership of that portion of the building 

which they are using and the State of New York will own the remainder of the building. The current cost estimate for this project 

is approximately $815,000,000. With this appropriation and a 

$160,000,000 Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan and line of credit, the federal commitment is complete. The State of New York, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New York City Economic Development Corporation, New York 

State Urban Development Corporation, U.S. Postal Service and priVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
121

vate equity will provide the remainder of the funding for this 

project. 

NEXT GENERATION HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROGRAM

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ..................................................... $32,300,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................... 23,200,000 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................... 30,450,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .............................................. ¥1,550,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............................................ +7,250,000

The next generation high-speed rail program funds the development, demonstration, and implementation of high-speed rail technologies. It is managed in conjunction with the program authorized 

in TEA–21. 

The Committee recommends $30,450,000 for the next generation high-speed rail program, which is $7,250,000 more than the budget 

request. Total program funding is allocated as follows:

Committee 

recommendation 

Train control systems: North American joint PTC project ................................................ $8,000,000 

Train control at the Transportation Technology Center ............. 1,000,000 

Non-electric locomotives: 

Advanced locomotive propulsion system ....................................... 3,500,000 

Prototype non-electric locomotive .................................................. 2,000,000 

Diesel mutiple units compliance and demonstration .................. 8,000,000 

Grade crossing and innovative technologies: 

Mitigating hazards ......................................................................... 2,250,000 

Low-cost technologies ..................................................................... 1,000,000 

Track and structures ............................................................................. 1,000,000 

Corridor planning: 

California corridor .......................................................................... 1,000,000 

Gulf Coast corridor ......................................................................... 600,000 

Southeast corridor .......................................................................... 100,000 

Florida corridor ............................................................................... 2,000,000 

Total ............................................................................................. 30,450,000

Diesel multiple units (DMU) compliance and demonstration program.—There is a growing interest from both commuter and intercity rail passenger service providers to use diesel multiple units on 

commuter and future high-speed rail corridors. However, this form 

of rail technology has not been produced in the United States since 

the Federal Railroad Administration has issued passenger equipment safety regulations. The Committee has provided $8,000,000 to 

validate the compliance of diesel multiple units with existing passenger car safety standards and to make a grant to a public body 

for the purpose of initiating a demonstration in daily revenue service of a compliant DMU during calendar year 2003. Federal funding shall only be made available if funds are matched on a dollarfor-dollar basis from non-federal sources and shall only be used for 

activities related to establishing the compliance of the DMU design 

with passenger car safety standards and for the acquisition of 

DMUs and service facilities necessary for revenue service demonstration. All other expenses, including the cost of passenger facilities and any net operating expenses, are not eligible for funding 

under this appropriation. 

California high-speed corridor.—In making funds available to the 

California High-Speed Rail Authority, the Committee expects FRA 

to ensure that the State of California maintains its level of effort 

122

in allocating state funds to support high-speed rail development 

and does not use federal funds as a substitute for state funding. 

Rail-highway crossing hazard eliminations.—Under section 1003 

of TEA–21, an automatic set-aside of $5,250,000 a year is made 

available for the elimination of rail-highway crossing hazards. A 

limited number of corridors are eligible for these funds. Of these 

funds, $2,000,000 shall be used to mitigate grade crossing hazards 

between Mobile, Alabama and New Orleans, Louisiana; $1,400,000 

shall be used to mitigate grade crossing hazards on the Empire 

Corridor between New York City and Albany, New York (including 

Hamilton Printing and Hook Boat); $1,000,000 to mitigate grade 

crossing hazards along the high-speed rail corridor in South Carolina; $250,000 to mitigate grade crossing hazards between Staples 

Mill Station and Main Street Station in Richmond, Virginia; 

$350,000 to mitigate grade crossing hazards between Chicago, Illinois and St. Louis, Missouri; and $250,000 shall be used on the 

high-speed rail corridor between Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota 

and Chicago, Illinois.

GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

(AMTRAK)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 1 ....................................................... $826,476,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ....................................................... 521,476,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 762,476,000 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .................................................. ¥64,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................ +241,000,000 1 Includes $100,000,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations (P.L. 107–117) and $205,000,000 in supplemental appropriations (P.L. 107–206). 

The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a private/public corporation created by the Rail Passenger Service Act 

of 1970 and incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia 

to operate a national rail passenger system. Amtrak started operation on May 1, 1971. 

STATUS OF AMTRAK

Amtrak’s financial situation has been especially precarious over 

the past year. While the railroad saw increased ridership, particularly on the Northeast Corridor, following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, its financial condition deteriorated so dramatically that the railroad began plans to cease all operations in early 

July of 2002. Serious structural reforms must occur during fiscal 

year 2003 if the railroad is to remain a viable entity instead of one 

that lurches from crisis to crisis. 

In 1997, with the passage of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act, Amtrak was required to reach operating self-sufficiency 

by the end of 2002. Year after year, Amtrak repeatedly told the 

Committee that it was fixated on meeting this mandate, even as 

others expressed serious reservations about Amtrak’s ability to 

meet or sustain operating self-sufficiency. On November 9, 2001, 

the Amtrak Reform Council rendered a decision that Amtrak could 

not achieve operational self-sufficiency by its statutory deadline of 

December 2, 2002. The council found that Amtrak’s financial performance since enactment of the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act had deteriorated to such as degree that the railroad was 

123

in a weaker financial condition at the end of 2001 than it was prior 

to enactment in 1997. 

On January 25, 2002, the Inspector General reached a similar 

conclusion in its report on Amtrak’s fiscal year 2001 performance. 

In that report, the Inspector General stated, ‘‘Amtrak’s cash losses 

have not decreased and Amtrak is no closer to operating self-sufficiency now than it was in 1997. With less than a year remaining 

in its mandate, there is not sufficient time for Amtrak to implement 

the kinds of sustainable improvements necessary to meet its deadlines for self-sufficiency. At this point in time, Amtrak will face a 

formidable challenge in 2002 just managing its cash resources—be 

they from operating revenues or federal subsidies—to make ends 

meet without further borrowing.’’ The Inspector General’s concern 

was right on target. 

In early February 2002, the President of Amtrak announced $285,000,000 in operating cuts, capital deferrals, and maintenance 

actions to provide the railroad enough money to get through this 

fiscal year. Yet, even these cuts were insufficient. 

In May 2002, it became apparent to the new President of the 

Corporation that Amtrak had enough money to only last through 

mid-July. After that, the railroad would need to borrow money to 

make payroll through the end of the fiscal year. While Amtrak has 

done this before, the ability to borrow money in fiscal year 2002 

had become much more complicated. Amtrak did not have a clean 

audit report from 2001, and still remains without an audit report 

of any type to this day. The Committee understands, however that 

the auditors had expressed serious concerns about Amtrak’s financial situation. During their audit, they found approximately 

$200,000,000 in financial misstatements. Without an audit report, 

banks were reluctant to loan Amtrak short-term cash for operating 

expenses. At the end of June, the Secretary of Transportation 

stepped in and provided Amtrak a direct loan for $100,000,000 to 

keep the railroad operating past mid-July. At the end of July, Congress appropriated an additional $205,000,000 in supplemental appropriations to keep the railroad operating through the end of fiscal year 2002. 

Amtrak’s shaky financial situation has had a direct impact on its 

revenues and riders. Amtrak’s year-to-date operating results are $65,000,000 worse than they anticipated. In June 2002 (when Amtrak was reporting the possible cessation of service), passenger revenues dropped by $13,300,000 and the railroad experienced a large 

number of cancellations. Revenues have been further impacted by 

a growing number of service quality issues, including an increase 

in the number of track slow orders, cancellations of service, and 

equipment problems, most notably the cancellation of Acela highspeed rail service due to cracking in the locomotives and railcars 

in August. A spate of accidents and derailments has led to a record 

number of railcars being placed out of service. As of June, over 100 

railcars and locomotives need to be repaired. This number has built 

up over time, as the railroad has had insufficient resources to repair them. 

BUDGET REQUESTS

The Committee has received two very different budget requests 

for Amtrak. The Administration has recommended an appropriaVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
124

tion of $521,476,000 and has stated that this amount is a 

placeholder until Congress decides how Amtrak should be structured. The Administration’s budget request notes that ‘‘Amtrak has 

utterly failed’’ to graduate from federal financial support and that 

Amtrak cannot continue indefinitely under current circumstances. 

In comparison, Amtrak has asked for more than double this 

amount—requesting a total of $1,200,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. 

This request does not allow for any new growth in service, it merely sustains their current deteriorated level of service. Amtrak also 

noted that if the railroad did not receive this entire appropriation,

it would stop all long-distance service, 18 trains in all, on October 

1, 2002. 

Since receiving these budget requests, numerous events have occurred that alter, to some degree, the requests before this Committee. First, in June 2002, the Department developed a white 

paper that outlined a broad restructuring of Amtrak. This proposal 

put details behind the broad assertions contained in the budget request. In general, the paper rejected the assertion that Amtrak’s 

problems can be fixed simply by a massive infusion of federal dollars. Instead, the Administration recommended systematic, rootand-branch rethinking of Amtrak’s structure and its public policy 

mandate. The Department suggested reforms that would: require 

Amtrak to transition to a pure operating company; introduce competition to provide higher quality rail service at a reasonable price; 

establish long-term partnerships between states and the Federal 

Government to support intercity rail; and create a public partnership to manage the capital assets of the Northeast Corridor. While 

Amtrak has rejected many of these notions outright, the railroad 

has not developed a separate proposal for consideration. Second, in 

the summer, Amtrak informally told the Committee that it may require more funding for operating expenses than originally anticipated in their grant request in part due to a perceived inability to 

access up to $300,000,000 in private loans and $3.7 billion in debt. 

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $762,476,000 for grants to Amtrak in fiscal year 2003, which is $241,000,000 more than the budget request. Of this total, $521,476,000 is for operating losses and mandatory payments and $241,000,000 is for general capital improvements. Funding is provided to the Secretary of Transportation, who 

shall allocate these funds to Amtrak quarterly through the grant 

making process. 

The Secretary is directed to assure that any funds provided to 

Amtrak be spent in a prudent manner, on projects where positive 

results can be seen. Funding should be spent on projects that maximize operational efficiencies and promote those lines that have the 

highest ridership and have cost sharing agreements in place. Amtrak shall not be permitted to begin any new projects unless it can 

be fully funded with the fiscal year 2003 appropriation and Amtrak 

generated revenues unless such projects are critical for safety or infrastructure repairs. 

Capital and operating work plan.—Bill language is included that 

requires Amtrak to submit to the Secretary of Transportation and 

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations an operating 

and capital work plan for projects and expenses to be funded in fisVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
125

cal year 2003. This work plan should not exceed funding provided 

in the final Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003. The work plan 

must be approved by Amtrak’s Board of Directors and submitted no 

later than (1) 60 days of enactment of the final Department of 

Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal 

year 2003 or (2) before Amtrak submits its 2004 grant request to 

Congress on February 15, 2003, whichever comes first. The capital 

and operating work plan shall include a description of the work to 

be funded, along with cost estimates and an estimated timetable 

for completion of the projects covered by this work plan. The Committee includes specific language directing the Secretary of Transportation that no funding may be used for operating and capital expenses not included on the approved work plan, excluding those 

payments made at the beginning of the fiscal year. Development 

and approval of the operating and capital plan should minimize the 

number of stopgap measures Amtrak has had to employ during the 

last few years, particularly relating to capital projects when the 

Corporation has been unable to commit funding to complete an entire project. 

Additional bill language is included that requires Amtrak to provide supplemental quarterly reports on the status of work included 

in the plan, including work completed to date, any changes to the 

work plan and reasons for such changes. The Committee directs 

that the work plan should be amended appropriately if changes to 

it occur during the fiscal year. 

In addition to the submission of an operating and capital plan for 

fiscal year 2003, the Secretary must vouch for the accuracy of Amtrak’s financial information. This must be in the form of a signed 

letter that would accompany the operating and capital plans. In 

doing so, the Secretary must certify in writing, that based on his 

knowledge, the financial statements and other financial information prepared by Amtrak for Congress (e.g. capital and operating 

plans, business plans that are attached to their yearly grant requests, etc.) fairly present in all material respects the financial condition of the Corporation. Specifically: 

1. Amtrak’s financial information and reports are prepared using 

generally accepted accounting standards. 

2. Amtrak has corrected any material weaknesses or inaccuracies 

identified by a publicly registered accounting firm according to generally accepted accounting principles. 

3. Amtrak has disclosed to the Secretary any and all material offbalance sheet transactions, arrangements, and obligations that 

may have a current or future material effect on the Corporation’s 

financial condition, changes in financial condition, results in operations, liquidity, capital expenditures, capital resources, or any significant components of revenues or expenses. 

4. Amtrak has designed internal controls to ensure that material 

information is made known to the Board of Directors and the Secretary of Transportation in a timely fashion. 

5. The Secretary has evaluated the effectiveness of Amtrak’s internal controls to assure that deficiencies are not occurring and, if 

so, all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal 

controls that could adversely affect the Corporation’s ability to 

record, process, summarize, or report financial data and identify 

fraud, have been corrected prior to certification. 

126

6. Finally, Amtrak should ensure that all of its financial information does not contain untrue statements of a material fact or omit 

to state a material fact necessary in order for the Board of Directors and the Secretary of Transportation to make informed financial decisions. 

The Secretary of Transportation and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations must approve any variations to the base 

operating and capital plans. Variations must be submitted through 

the reprogramming process. 

Reprogrammings.—During the start up phase in the 1970s and 

early 1980s, Amtrak was subject to reprogramming guidelines. 

Given their current financial status, the Committee finds it necessary to exert greater management controls by reinstituting the 

reprogramming process. While the Committee generally accepts the 

view that rigid adherence to the amounts justified in a grant request or capital plan may unduly jeopardize the effective accomplishment of planned programs in the most economical way, the 

Committee believes that it must be notified of any significant 

changes. For example, unforeseen requirements or changes in operating conditions may require some changes in funds from the specific purposes for which they were initially justified. 

Reprogrammings (defined as changes in the application of grant 

monies appropriated differently than initially justified to Congress, 

as amended by final action by Congress) must be developed by the 

Corporation in consultation with the Department of Transportation 

and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. This will 

provide the basis for appropriate oversight of the utilization by the 

Corporation of grant appropriations while providing flexibility in 

the execution of the railroad’s programs. 

Specifically, Amtrak must provide timely information to the 

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and to the Secretary of Transportation on the Corporation’s entire spending plan. 

To do so, Amtrak must issue an operating and capital plan, or a 

‘‘base’’ report, following final Congressional appropriation action on 

the Corporation’s grant request. This report should show, by budget category, the base reflecting Congressional action with annotations to include any specific Congressional direction or guidance on 

the use of capital grant monies for specific purposes. The report 

should be promptly transmitted to the Department of Transportation and to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

Approval by the Subcommittee Chairman of the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations is a prerequisite before any reprogramming action can be implemented. The following information must be provided by Amtrak, if relevant, to permit review of 

the reprogramming request: 

1. A description of why the reprogramming is necessary and 

what may occur without it. 

2. A table or worksheet showing an increase in monies for budget 

categories, activities or items and similarly one showing where specific reductions are proposed. 

3. Any proposed increase in monies for budget categories, activities, or items for which specific reductions were made by the Congress below amounts requested in the budget. 

127

4. Any proposed change to an action that, by its nature, is known 

to be or has been designated as a matter of special interest to either of the Committees. 

5. An increase by ten percent or more in monies previously approved for a budget category, except that increases of less than 

$1,000,000 to a category will not be subject to prior approval. 

6. An addition of a new budget category. 

7. Other reprogramming actions which individually do not require prior Congressional approval but that, when considered cumulatively with previous unreported actions, would equal or exceed 

the ten percent and $1,000,000 thresholds for a budget category for 

the applicable fiscal year. 

These proposed reprogramming shall be submitted to the Department of Transportation and the House and Senate Committees on 

Appropriations promptly. Reprogramming actions will not be implemented if either of the Committees offers an objection to the proposed reprogramming. In the event that the Corporation has not 

been informed of approval or disapproval, or has not otherwise requested to defer action, within 30 calendar days of receipt by the 

Committees, it will be assumed by the Corporation that there is no 

objection and the reprogramming action can be implemented. However, in the case where the Department of Transportation has, 

within this 30–day period, notified the Corporation and the Committees in writing of its non-concurrence, the proposed reprogramming will not be implemented without the affirmative approval of 

both Committees. 

Direct loan provisions.—Bill language is also included that requires Amtrak to continue to abide by some provisions of the direct 

loan agreement signed on June 28, 2002, which would otherwise 

expire. These include: 

(1) Amtrak management will significantly improve financial controls and accounting transparency, including developing or enhancing any existing capacity separately. Management must report to 

the Board of Directors, the Department of Transportation (DOT), 

and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations monthly 

on: (a) all revenues and expenses associated with rail operations by 

route, and (b) budgeted and actual expenditures for all capital investments. 

(2) Amtrak management will provide to the Board of Directors, 

the Department of Transportation, and Congress monthly performance reports. Amtrak shall also make available to DOT the same 

details and reports on its financial performance that it makes 

available to Amtrak management, at the same that it provides 

those reports and details to Amtrak management. 

(3) Amtrak funds will be spent only on existing plant and services. With the exception of expenditures for which it obtains written approval from DOT, Amtrak will suspend use of any of its 

funds for actual expansion or planning for expansion of rail service, 

including high speed rail service through fiscal year 2003. 

(4) Amtrak will provide DOT core operating data so that the Department can monitor and evaluate the railroad’s ability to manage 

its cash flow, within the current appropriations level and using 

conservative revenue assumptions. 

An additional requirement of the direct loan provision was 

$100,000,000 in cost savings. The Committee directs Amtrak to 

128

continue this provision and find $100,000,000 in cost savings annually. Amtrak management should formulate a prioritized list of expense reduction options for implementation beginning in fiscal year 

2003. These expense reduction options should identify at least 

$100,000,000 of potential reductions on an annualized basis. In 

concert with the provision, Amtrak must seek the cooperation of all 

of its employees in achieving substantial operating cost reductions. 

Short distance trains.—The Committee is aware that Amtrak 

does not uniformly charge states for operations on their short distance or corridor trains outside of the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak 

shall establish a more uniform methodology for cost sharing on 

these routes. To do so, Amtrak shall analyze current state funding 

for operating expenses and capital improvements, and review the 

contractual terms under which this funding is provided, and consult with states served by these routes to establish new cost sharing procedures and increase state support on these routes. Amtrak 

shall report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the status of these efforts by April 1, 2003. 

Long distance operations.—Amtrak trains have rarely operated 

at a profit. In 2001, only two Amtrak routes were profitable—the 

Metroliner/Acela Express and the Heartland Flyer, which is a 

heavily state supported train operating between Oklahoma City 

and Dallas/Fort Worth. Every other train (39 of 41) operates at a 

loss. The per rider losses range from $4.11 for the Capitols (ColfaxSacramento-San Jose, CA) to $347.45 for the Sunset Limited (Los 

Angeles, CA to Orlando, FL). Nationally, the loss per rider is 

$33.09; however, the average per rider loss escalates to $138.71 for 

long distance trains. In other words, for Amtrak to break even financially, American taxpayers would be required to subsidize each 

Amtrak rider’s trip an average of $33.09, and each long distance 

rider’s trip $138.71. 

Over the past five years, the number of long distance trains that 

operate at a substantial loss has grown dramatically. In 1997, the 

General Accounting Office reported that only two routes—the 

Texas Eagle and the Sunset Limited—lost over $200 per passenger. 

By comparison, in fiscal year 2001, six routes—the Three Rivers, 

the Southwest Chief, the Texas Eagle, the Sunset Limited, the 

Kentucky Cardinal, and the Pennsylvanian—incurred a loss of 

more than $200 per passenger. This growth in per passenger loss 

is particularly startling because, during this same time period, 

Congress required Amtrak to become operationally self-sufficient, 

and in trying to meet this mandate, Amtrak negotiated new or increased support payments from some states to improve the financial performance of various routes. For example, between 1998 and 

2002, state operating support increased from $83,000,000 to 

$126,000,000. California has been a leader in this front. In 2002, 

California will provide about $65,000,000 for operating support of 

Amtrak services and has contributed funding for specific capital 

improvements. 

It is clear that increased state support could improve Amtrak’s 

finances. It is equally clear that Congress cannot provide huge increases in subsidies for Amtrak without some cost-sharing by those 

receiving the value of those services. The Committee is aware that 

Amtrak is in the process of refining its route contribution analysis 

to better identify how each train performs and what percentage of 

129

its costs are covered by revenues so that Amtrak can renegotiate 

state contracts for additional support. The Committee has included 

bill language that limits the amount of assistance available to operate long distance trains to $150,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. Any 

amount above that level will require Amtrak to make up the difference, through operating efficiencies, increased revenues from 

new riders, and/or contributions from states, localities, or non-Federal entities that benefit from these long distance trains. The Committee believes that Amtrak is in the best position to make route 

decisions and to determine which, if any, routes may be impacted 

by this cap on operating assistance. However, through a combination of increased revenues, perhaps based on new riders, and contributions from non-federal sources, Amtrak may be able to continue every long distance train, but at lower federal subsidy. 

As Amtrak begins to reduce the cost of operations of its long distance trains, the Committee directs Amtrak to report on measures 

it undertakes after the start of fiscal year 2003 to reduce the financial burden of such trains on the federal treasury. Specific estimates of cost savings to be achieved shall be provided in both fiscal 

year 2003 and for a five-year period. Further, the report shall highlight any impacts these measures may have on Amtrak’s mail and 

express services. This report is due to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than April 1, 2003. 

Cessation in commuter services.—A general provision is included 

that would authorize directed rail service along commuter lines 

after a service cessation by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. Under this language, states and mass transit authorities 

can petition the STB if there is a substantial threat of cessation of 

service by a passenger contractor. The STB may, as necessary, also 

permit commuter railroads to override contracts with Amtrak and 

government grant agreements to assure a continuation of service. 

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION 

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2003 PROGRAM

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was established as a 

component of the Department of Transportation on July 1, 1968, 

when most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit Act (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) were transferred from 

the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Known as the 

Urban Mass Transportation Administration until enactment of the 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal Transit Administration administers federal financial assistance programs for planning, developing and improving comprehensive mass transportation systems in both urban and non-urban 

areas. 

Much of the funding for the Federal Transit Administration is 

provided by annual limitations on obligations provided in appropriations Acts. However, direct appropriations are required for portions of all accounts. 

The current authorization for the programs funded by the Federal Transit Administration is contained in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21). TEA–21 also amended the 

Budget Enforcement Act to provide two additional discretionary 

spending categories, the highway category and the mass transit 

130

category. The mass transit category is comprised of transit formula 

grants, transit capital funding, Federal Transit Administration administrative expenses, transit planning and research and university transportation center funding. The mass transit category obligations are capped at $7,226,000,000 and outlays are capped at 

$5,781,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. Any additional appropriated 

funding above the levels specified as guaranteed for each transit 

program in TEA–21 (that which could be appropriated from general 

funds authorized under section 5338(h)) is scored against the nondefense discretionary category. 

The total funding provided for FTA for fiscal year 2003 is $7,226,000,000, including $1,445,000,000 in direct appropriations 

and $5,781,000,000 in limitations on contract authority. The total 

recommended is $383,200,000 (5.6 percent) over the fiscal year 

2002 enacted level when supplemental appropriations are excluded. 

The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2002 program levels, the fiscal year 2003 budget request, and the fiscal year 2003 

recommended levels:

Program Fiscal year 2002

enacted 

Fiscal year 2003

request 

Recommended in the 

bill 

Administrative expenses ........................................................... $67,000,000 4 $73,000,000 $73,000,000 

Formula grants 1, 2 .................................................................... 3,615,500,000 3,839,000,000 3,839,000,000 

University transportation research ........................................... 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 

Transit planning and research ................................................. 116,000,000 122,000,000 122,000,000 

Capital investment grants 2, 3 .................................................. 4,741,000,000 3,036,000,000 3,036,000,000 

Job access and reverse commute grants ................................. 125,000,000 150,000,000 150,000,000

Total ...................................................................................... 8,670,500,000 7,226,000,000 7,226,000,000 

1 Includes $23,500,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations (P.L. 107–117). 2 Does not reflect transfer of $50,000,000 from formula grants to capital investment grants. 

3 Includes a total of $1,900,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations exclusively for the rehabilitation and enhancements of transit systems in the Borough of Manhattan, New York City, New York following September 11, 2001 (P.L. 107–117 and P.L. 107–206). 4 Excludes $3,586,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals. 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriation

(General fund) 

Limitation on obligations 

(Trust fund) 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ................. $13,400,000 ($53,600,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 1 ............. 14,600,000 (58,400,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................ 14,600,000 (58,400,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .......... +1,200,000 (+4,800,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ........ ................................ ................................ 1 Excludes $3,586,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals. 

The bill provides a total appropriation of $73,000,000 for FTA’s 

salaries and expenses. The recommendation is $6,000,000 above 

the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. This appropriation is guaranteed 

under the transit funding category. The recommendation of 

$73,000,000 is comprised of an appropriation of $14,600,000 from 

the general fund and $58,400,000 from limitations on obligations 

from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. 

Full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years.—The Committee has approved the 12 new positions requested to implement statutory requirements for over 160 new starts projects, to improve the oversight of transit grants and contracts, and to meet FTA’s statutory 

and administrative requirements. While a total of $1,098,000 was 

requested for the 12 positions, funding has been reduced by half 

(¥$549,000). This reduction reflects half year funding for these 

131

new positions instead of full year funding, which is consistent with 

last year’s hiring practices in FTA and general budget guidance 

and practices. Also, the Committee continues to be concerned about 

FTA’s high attrition rate (9 percent in 2001). Because of this rate, 

it is likely that it will take FTA a substantial amount of time to 

fill these new positions, especially considering the high level of current vacancies. 

FECA administrative costs.—The Committee has denied funding 

included in the budget request for FECA administrative costs 

(¥$15,000). This is consistent across all modal administrations 

funded in this bill and is explained in an earlier section of this report. 

Project management oversight activities.—The Committee recommends that FTA increase funding available for project management oversight activities by $564,000. According to FTA, funding 

for oversight is expected to decrease from $52,500,000 in 2002 to 

$48,305,000 in 2003. This decrease is attributable to FTA no longer 

having carryover to finance these activities. It is critical that FTA 

continue to support strong project and financial oversight activities, 

particularly as more communities are interested in applying for 

funding under newer statutory programs; are developing or expanding rail systems; and more will become interested in the program as urbanized areas grow. 

To further support oversight activities, the Committee includes 

bill language that requires FTA to reimburse the Department of 

Transportation Office of Inspector General for $2,000,000 in costs 

associated with audits and investigations of transit related issues, 

including reviews of new fixed guideway systems. This reimbursement must come from funds available for the execution of contracts. Over the past several years, the IG has provided critical 

oversight of several major transit projects, which the Committee 

has found invaluable. The Committee anticipates that the Inspector General will continue such oversight activities in fiscal year 

2003. 

Full funding grant agreements (FFGAs).—TEA–21, as amended, 

requires that FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as well as the House Committee on Transportation 

and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Banking 60 days 

before executing a full funding grant agreement. In its notification 

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, FTA is directed to include therein the following: (1) a copy of the proposed 

full funding grant agreement; (2) the total and annual federal appropriations required for that project; (3) yearly and total federal 

appropriations that can be reasonably planned or anticipated for 

future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2003; (4) a detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and anticipated FFGAs 

against the program authorization; and (5) a financial analysis of 

the project’s cost and sponsor’s ability to finance, which shall be 

conducted by an independent examiner and which shall include an 

assessment of the capital cost estimate and the finance plan; the 

source and security of all public- and private-sector financial instruments, the project’s operating plan which enumerates the 

project’s future revenue and ridership forecasts, and planned contingencies and risks associated with the project. 

132

Also FTA is directed to inform the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations before approving scope changes in any full funding grant agreement. Correspondence relating to scope changes 

shall include any budget revisions or program changes that materially alter the project as originally stipulated in the full funding 

grant agreement, and shall include any proposed change in rail car 

procurements. 

Bill language.—New bill language is included pertaining to the 

timely submission of the annual new starts report. A detailed discussion explaining why this language is necessary can be found 

under ‘‘new starts, capital investment grants’’. 

FORMULA GRANTS

Appropriation

(General fund) 

Limitation on obligations 

(Trust fund) 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 1, 2 ............ $741,900,000 ($2,873,600,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 2 ............. 767,800,000 (3,071,200,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................ 767,800,000 (3,071,200,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .......... +25,900,000 (+197,600,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ........ ................................ ................................

1 Includes $23,500,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations (P.L. 107–117). 2Does not reflect transfer of $2,000,000 to the Office of Inspector General and $50,000,000 to capital investment grants. 

The accompanying bill provides a total of $3,839,000,000 for transit formula grants. This level is $247,000,000 above the 2002 

enacted level when the supplemental appropriation is excluded and 

is guaranteed under the transit category. The recommended program level of $3,839,000,000 is comprised of an appropriation of $767,800,000 from the general fund and 

$3,071,200,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. Formula grants to states and 

local agencies funded under this heading fall into four categories: 

urbanized area formula grants (U.S.C. sec. 5307); clean fuels formula grants (U.S.C. sec. 5308); formula grants and loans for special 

needs of elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities 

(U.S.C. sec. 5310); and formula grants for other than urbanized 

areas (U.S.C. sec. 5311). In addition, set asides of formula funds 

are directed to a grant program for intercity bus operators to finance Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility costs and 

the Alaska Railroad for improvements to its passenger operations. Within the total funding level of $3,839,000,000, the Committee’s 

recommendation includes the following distribution:

Urbanized areas (U.S.C. 5307) ...................................................... $3,428,709,908 

Oversight ......................................................................................... 18,432,736

Clean fuels (sec. 5308) ................................................................... 50,000,000 

Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310) .................................................... 90,652,801

Non-urbanized areas (sec. 5311) ................................................... 239,404,605

Over-the-road bus accessibility program ...................................... 6,950,000 

Alaska railroad 1 ............................................................................. 4,850,000

1 Includes $24,300 for oversight activities. 

Operating costs.—Section 3007 of TEA–21 amends U.S.C. 5307, 

urbanized formula grants, by striking the authorization to utilize 

these funds for operating costs, but includes a specific provision allowing the Secretary to make operating grants to urbanized areas 

with a population of less than 200,000. Generally, these grants may 

133

be used to fund capital projects, and to finance planning and improvement costs of equipment, facilities, and associated capital 

maintenance used in mass transportation. All urbanized areas 

greater than 200,000 in population are statutorily required to use 

one percent of their annual formula grants on enhancements, 

which can include landscaping, public art, bicycle storage, and connections to parks. 

Major project alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering 

and design.—The accompanying bill provides appreciable increases 

in formula funds allocated to transit authorities. These funds can 

be used, among other activities, for alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering and design (PE&D) of new rail extensions or 

busways. The Committee asserts that local project sponsors of new 

rail extensions or busways should use these funds (or those provided under section 5303 metropolitan planning) for alternatives 

analysis and PE&D activities rather than seek section 5309 discretionary set-asides. Moreover, the Committee expects the FTA, 

when evaluating the local financial commitment of a given project, 

to consider the extent to which the project’s sponsors have used the 

appreciable increases in the formula grants apportionments for alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering and design activities of proposed new systems. 

Clean fuels program.—TEA–21 requires that $50,000,000 be set 

aside from funds made available under the formula grants program 

to fund a new clean fuels program. The clean fuels program is supplemented by an additional set-aside from the major capital investment’s bus program and provides grants for the purchase or lease 

of clean fuel buses for eligible recipients in areas that are not in 

compliance with air quality attainment standards. The Committee 

has identified designated recipients of these funds within the 

projects listed under the bus program of the capital investment 

grants account. 

Over-the-road bus accessibility program.—The Committee has 

provided $6,950,000 in fiscal year 2003 for the over-the-road accessibility program. This program is designed to assist operators of 

over-the-road buses in financing the incremental capital and training costs of complying with the department’s final rule on accessibility required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Of this total, 

$5,250,000 will be available for intercity fixed route projects and 

the remainder will be available for other services such as local 

fixed route service, commuter service or charter service. 

Denial of two new initiatives.—The Committee has denied funding for two new initiatives—the ‘‘new freedom initiative 

(¥$144,275,000) and ‘‘environmental streamlining’’ (¥$6,000,000) 

from the formula grant program. Neither is authorized. Funding 

from this program would unfairly reduce each state’s apportionment. 

Salaries and benefits.—No funds provided in this Act can be used 

by the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority to pay either the 

salary or benefits to the elected or appointed officers of the Association of Commuter Rail Employees. Nor may any funds in this Act 

be used to pay the Association of Commuter Rail Employees unless 

the New York Metropolitan Transit Authority makes equal payments to all officers elected and appointed and all local labor 

unions in equal proportional amounts. 

134

The following table displays the state-by-state distribution of formula funds within each of the program categories:

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, FISCAL YEAR 2003 GUARANTEED LEVEL APPORTIONMENT FOR 

FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE) 

State Section 5307 urbanized area 

Section 5311 non-urbanized area 

Section 5310 elderly 

and persons with disabilities 

Total formula programs 2

Alabama ......................................... $14,927,927 $6,693,617 $1,582,925 $23,204,469

Alaska ............................................. 1 8,546,214 932,932 240,303 9,719,449

American Samoa ............................ 0 153,033 60,088 213,121

Arizona ............................................ 44,214,267 3,265,400 1,652,847 49,132,514

Arkansas ......................................... 8,076,720 4,841,871 1,029,871 13,948,462

California ........................................ 583,841,997 10,475,294 9,488,919 603,806,210

Colorado ......................................... 46,448,166 2,907,313 1,160,010 50,515,489

Connecticut .................................... 46,629,133 1,488,013 1,128,644 49,245,790

Delaware ......................................... 6,342,133 674,647 352,994 7,369,774

District of Columbia ...................... 66,802,132 0 309,042 67,111,174

Florida ............................................ 158,320,783 6,710,664 6,064,881 171,096,328

Georgia ........................................... 63,237,705 8,484,475 2,295,637 74,017,817

Guam .............................................. 1,359,878 60,272 157,227 1,577,377

Hawaii ............................................ 26,885,021 1,003,351 476,147 28,364,519

Idaho .............................................. 5,731,779 1,843,482 455,768 8,031,029

Illinois ............................................. 220,316,888 7,163,547 3,526,256 231,006,691

Indiana ........................................... 36,011,838 7,130,780 1,871,517 45,014,135

Iowa ................................................ 12,875,848 4,838,882 980,862 18,695,592

Kansas ............................................ 9,613,682 3,954,869 882,653 14,451,204

Kentucky ......................................... 19,550,450 6,611,124 1,461,839 27,623,413

Louisiana ........................................ 31,467,926 5,164,303 1,455,553 38,087,782

Maine .............................................. 3,062,068 2,566,899 533,084 6,162,051

Maryland ......................................... 69,014,462 2,800,694 1,545,478 73,360,634

Massachusetts ............................... 127,232,927 1,907,117 2,041,414 131,181,458

Michigan ......................................... 68,303,580 8,975,050 2,938,848 80,217,478

Minnesota ....................................... 42,155,128 5,897,179 1,366,007 49,418,314

Mississippi ..................................... 5,276,443 5,782,322 1,032,720 12,091,485

Missouri .......................................... 36,804,592 6,690,078 1,788,808 45,283,478

Montana ......................................... 2,581,607 1,784,329 384,485 4,750,421

N. Mariana Islands ........................ 676,035 20,103 60,998 757,136

Nebraska ........................................ 8,374,720 2,420,469 596,510 11,391,699

Nevada ........................................... 24,300,864 859,972 721,940 25,882,776

New Hampshire .............................. 4,650,337 1,826,955 457,852 6,935,144

New Jersey ...................................... 216,873,343 1,764,450 2,587,773 221,225,566

New Mexico .................................... 9,107,633 2,555,496 655,206 12,318,335

New York ........................................ 548,839,731 9,273,805 6,091,120 564,204,656

North Carolina ................................ 37,223,366 11,455,078 2,563,722 51,242,166

North Dakota .................................. 3,056,087 1,098,920 310,725 4,465,732

Ohio ................................................ 91,723,614 10,796,386 3,431,195 105,951,195

Oklahoma ....................................... 13,978,521 5,254,198 1,208,398 20,441,117

Oregon ............................................ 36,021,230 3,860,548 1,122,512 41,004,290

Pennsylvania .................................. 155,123,266 10,871,771 4,044,433 170,039,470

Puerto Rico ..................................... 44,710,018 886,606 1,399,708 46,996,332

Rhode Island .................................. 8,295,427 321,072 463,004 9,079,503

South Carolina ............................... 14,169,630 5,711,432 1,383,261 21,264,323

South Dakota .................................. 2,348,155 1,496,539 339,305 4,183,999

Tennessee ....................................... 28,761,361 7,277,715 1,914,830 37,953,906

Texas .............................................. 194,268,566 16,176,384 5,644,548 216,089,498

Utah ................................................ 27,314,937 1,295,746 592,321 29,203,004

Vermont .......................................... 1,043,904 1,344,823 294,426 2,683,153

Virgin Islands ................................. 0 290,119 150,772 440,891

Virginia ........................................... 54,257,001 6,317,842 2,017,699 62,592,542

Washington ..................................... 95,180,075 4,247,980 1,720,930 101,148,985

West Virginia .................................. 4,929,603 3,461,591 784,330 9,175,524

Wisconsin ....................................... 41,295,126 6,734,456 1,574,405 49,603,987

Wyoming ......................................... 1,381,764 982,612 256,054 2,620,430

Subtotal ............................ 3,433,535,608 239,404,605 90,652,801 3,763,593,014

Oversight ........................................ 17,253,948 1,203,038 0 18,456,986

135

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, FISCAL YEAR 2003 GUARANTEED LEVEL APPORTIONMENT FOR 

FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE)—Continued

State Section 5307 urbanized area 

Section 5311 non-urbanized area 

Section 5310 elderly 

and persons with disabilities 

Total formula programs 2

Total .................................. 3,450,789,556 240,607,643 90,652,801 3,782,050,000

Clean Fuels .................................... ................................ ................................ ................................ 50,000,000

Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility ... ................................ ................................ ................................ 6,950,000

Grand Total ....................... ................................ ................................ ................................ 2 3,839,000,000

1 Includes $4,825,700 for the Alaska Railroad improvements to passenger operations. 

2 Does not include new freedom initiatives nor environmental streamlining. 

UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

Appropriation

(General fund) 

Limitation on obligations 

(Trust fund) 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ................. $1,200,000 ($4,800,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............... 1,200,000 (4,800,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................ 1,200,000 (4,800,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .......... ................................ ................................

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ........ ................................ ................................

The accompanying bill provides a total of $6,000,000 for university transportation research. The recommendation is the same level 

as provided in fiscal year 2002. This appropriation is guaranteed 

under the transit funding category. 

The recommended program level of $6,000,000 is comprised of an 

appropriation of $1,200,000 from the general fund and $4,800,000 

from limitations on obligations from the mass transit account of the 

highway trust fund. 

TRANSIT PLANNING AND RESEARCH

Appropriation

(General fund) 

Limitation on obligations 

(Trust fund) 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ................. $23,000,000 ($93,000,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............... 24,200,000 (97,800,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................ 24,200,000 (97,800,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .......... +1,200,000 (+4,800,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ........ ................................ ................................

The accompanying bill provides a total of $122,000,000 for transit planning and research. The recommendation is $6,000,000 more 

than provided in fiscal year 2002 and the same level as in the 

budget request. This appropriation is guaranteed under the transit 

funding category. 

The recommended program level of $122,000,000 is comprised of 

an appropriation of $24,200,000 from the general fund and 

$97,800,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass transit 

account of the highway trust fund. 

The bill contains language specifying that $60,385,600 shall be available for metropolitan planning; $12,614,400 shall be available 

for state planning; $31,500,000 shall be available for national planning and research; $8,250,000 shall be available for transit cooperative research; $4,000,000 shall be available for the National Transit Institute; and $5,250,000 shall be available for rural transportation assistance. 

136

The bill includes funds for the following projects within the funds 

provided for the national program in fiscal year 2003:

Project ACTION (TEA–21) .................................................................... $3,000,000 

National planning and research.—Within the $31,500,000 for national planning and research, support is provided for a number of 

important initiatives including:

Calstart/Westart bus rapid transit ....................................................... $2,000,000 

Clean mobility and transit enhancements ........................................... 2,000,000 

Electric Transit Vehicle Institute, TN ................................................. 500,000 

University of South Florida (Urban Transit Research) ...................... 250,000 

Santa Barbara Electric Transit Institute, CA ..................................... 500,000 

Hennepin County community transportation, MN ............................. 1,000,000 

Joblinks/Community Transportation Association ............................... 500,000 

Electrostatically-charged aerosol decontamination system ................ 1,000,000

North Dakota Transit Center ............................................................... 400,000

PVTA electric bus project ...................................................................... 1,000,000

Electrostatically-charged aerosol decontamination system.—The 

Committee has provided $1,000,000 for research on an electrostatically changed, aerosol decontamination system (ECADS) to be 

used in transit systems. Over 20 million riders in the top 30 U.S. 

cities utilize metropolitan transit systems to get to and from their 

places of employment. Any extended disruption of these systems 

due to chemical or biological attack would not only endanger riders 

but cripple businesses and communities that depend on these transit systems. While FTA and local transit authorities are testing 

sensor systems to detect such attacks, there are no available means 

to decontaminate, quickly and effectively, a facility after such an 

event to provide a safe environment, and restore service and rider 

confidence. The Committee believes ECADS has potential to meet 

these requirements and requires further evaluation by FTA. 

TRUST FUND SHARE OF EXPENSES

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ..................................................... $5,397,800,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................... 5,781,000,000 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................... 5,781,000,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .............................................. +383,200,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............................................ ................................

For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has provided $5,781,000,000 

for liquidation of contract authorization. The increase over last 

year is necessary to pay outstanding obligations of the various 

transit programs at the funding levels contained in TEA–21 and 

supported by prior appropriations Acts. 

137

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriation

(General fund) 

Limitation on obligations 

(Trust fund) 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 1, 2 ............ $2,468,200,000 ($2,272,800,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 2 ............. 607,200,000 (2,428,800,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................ 607,200,000 (2,428,800,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .......... ¥1,861,000 +156,000,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ........ ................................ ................................

1 Includes a total of $1,900,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations exclusively for the repair 

and rehabilitation of transit systems in the Borough of Manhattan, New York City, New York following September 11, 2001 (P.L. 107–117 and P.L. 107–206). 2Does not reflect transfer of $50,000,000 from formula grants. 

The accompanying bill provides a total of $3,036,000,000 to be 

available for capital investment grants. The recommendation is 

$195,000,000 more than provided in fiscal year 2002 when the supplemental appropriations are excluded and the same level as the 

budget request. This appropriation is guaranteed under the transit 

category. The recommended program level of $3,036,000,000 is comprised of an appropriation of $607,200,000 from the general fund and 

$2,428,800,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. 

Funds provided for capital investment grants shall be distributed 

as follows:

Recommended

in the bill 

Bus and bus facilities ....................................................................................................................................... $607,200,000

Fixed guideway modernization ........................................................................................................................... 1,214,400,000

New starts .......................................................................................................................................................... 1,214,400,000

Total ...................................................................................................................................................... 3,036,000,000

Three-year availability of section 5309 funds.—The Committee 

has included bill language that permits the administrator to reallocate discretionary new start and buses and bus facilities funds 

from projects which remain unobligated after three years. Funds 

made available in the fiscal year 2000 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act and previous Acts 

are available for reallocation in fiscal year 2003 as availability for 

these discretionary projects is limited to three years. The Committee directs the FTA to reprogram funds from recoveries and previous appropriations that remain available after three years and 

are available for reallocation to only those new starts that have full 

funding grant agreements in place on the date of enactment of this 

Act, and with respect to bus and bus facilities, only to those bus 

and bus facilities projects identified in the accompanying reports of 

the fiscal year 2003 Department of Transportation and Related 

Agencies Appropriations Act. The FTA shall notify the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations 15 days prior to any such reallocation, consistent with the department’s reprogramming guidelines. 

BUSES AND BUS FACILITIES

The accompanying bill provides $607,200,000 for bus purchases 

and bus facilities, including maintenance garages and intermodal 

138

facilities. Bus systems are expected to play a vital role in the mass 

transportation systems of virtually all cities. FTA estimates that 95 

percent of the areas that provide mass transit service do so 

through bus transit only and over 60 percent of all transit passenger trips are provided by bus. 

TEA–21 requires that funding of $100,000,000 be made available 

for a new clean fuels grant program. This funding is derived from 

$50,000,000 from the formula grants account and $50,000,000 from 

funds allocated for buses under this account. Designated recipients 

of the clean fuels grant program—funding for which is derived in 

part from the formula grants program—are identified in the lists 

below (to the extent funding is allocated for the purchase of eligible 

alternative-fuel vehicles, related facilities and other eligible activities). 

Funds made available for bus and bus facilities are to be supple- mented with $21,572,640 from projects included in previous appropriations Acts. The Committee is aware that these funds may not 

be needed due to changing local circumstances or are in excess of 

the project requirements. Unexpended funding from previous appropriations Acts are reallocated:

Lancaster Pennsylvania RRTA bus terminal (1999) 

Essex Junction, Vermont, multimodal station rehabilitation (2000) 

Buffalo, New York auditorium intermodal center (1999) 

Fayette County, Pennsylvania intermodal parking facility, (1999) 

Ithaca, New York intermodal transportation center 

Towamencin Township, Pennsylvania intermodal transportation center (1999 

and 2000) 

Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania intermodal facility (1998 and 1999) 

Richmond, Virginia GRTC bus maintenance facility (2000) 

Birmingham-Jefferson County, Alabama buses (2000) 

Dothan Wiregrass, Alabama vehicles and transit facility (2000) 

Jefferson/Montevallo, Alabama pedestrian walkway (2000) 

Pritchard, Alabama bus transfer facility (1999) 

Wilcox County, Alabama Gees Bend ferry facilities (2000) 

Central Midland, South Carolina transit system (2000) 

Pee Dee Transit, South Carolina buses and facilities (2000) 

South Carolina statewide virtual transit enterprise (2000) 

Folsom, California multimodal facility (1999) 

Washoe County, Nevada transit improvements (2000) 

Fairbanks, Alaska intermodal rail/bus transfer facility (2000) 

Juneau, Alaska downtown mass transit facility (2000) 

Georgetown University fuel cell bus and bus facilities program (2000)

In addition, the Committee directs the FTA not to reallocate 

funds provided in the fiscal year 2000 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act or previous Acts 

for the following bus and bus facilities projects:

Swampscott, Massachusetts, buses 

Washington County, Pennsylvania intermodal facilities, buses, and bus facilities 

Foothills Transit, California buses and HEV vehicles 

Chatham, Georgia area transit buses and transfer center 

Fair Lakes League, Virginia 

Dulles Corridor, Virginia park-and-ride express bus program 

Fayette County, Pennsylvania intermodal facility 

Ithaca, New York intermodal transportation center 

Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania intermodal facility

As noted earlier, the Committee will not extend projects again 

that have already been extended in previous Appropriations bills 

(e.g. 1998 and 1999 funding). Those projects have had at least four 

years to spend their funding, and if they still remain unable to do 

139

so, the Committee believes it is better to allocate these funds to 

projects that can obligate these funds in a more timely fashion. 

The Committee recommendation assumes the following distribution of bus and bus facilities funds:

Alabama: 

Bevill State Community College transit project .......................... $500,000

Cullman County Commission (CARTS) ........................................ 150,000

Huntsville intermodal center ......................................................... 4,000,000

Jefferson County, diesel hybrid electric buses ............................. 1,500,000

Union Station/Molton Street multimodal facility, Montgomery 1,000,000

Alaska: 

Skagway Municipal and Regional Transit ................................... 350,000

Arizona: 

Coconino County buses .................................................................. 2,000,000

Phoenix (RPTA) bus facilities ........................................................ 4,200,000

Phoenix (RPTA) bus replacement ................................................. 3,835,000

Sun Tran bus storage and maintenance facility .......................... 3,500,000

Sun Tran replacement buses, including alternatively fueled ..... 2,000,000

Tucson intermodal center (Union Pacific Depot) ......................... 4,000,000

Arkansas: 

State of Arkansas bus and bus facilities—urban, rural, and elderly and disabled agencies ....................................................... 3,000,000

California: 

Alameda Contra Costa bus and bus facilities .............................. 2,500,000

Anaheim Resort Transportation (ART) project ............................ 1,000,000

Antelope Valley Transit Authority, operations and maintenance facility ............................................................................... 3,000,000

BART Fruitvale Transit Village, parking structure .................... 500,000

Chinatown intermodal center ........................................................ 2,500,000

Chinco Transcenter, Omnitrans .................................................... 660,000

City of Salinas, intermodal transportation center ....................... 2,500,000

City of Sierra Madre buses and natural gas vehicle fueling station ............................................................................................... 300,000

East County bus maintenance facility .......................................... 3,200,000

El Garces intermodal station ......................................................... 3,000,000

Fairfield/Suisun Transit alternative fueled buses ....................... 1,500,000

Folsom Railroad Block project ....................................................... 3,400,000

Foothill Transit buses .................................................................... 3,000,000

Fresno Area Express (FAX) buses ................................................. 1,000,000

Golden Empire Transit District .................................................... 1,500,000

Los Angeles County (MTA), metro bus program ......................... 3,500,000

Modesto bus maintenance facility ................................................. 3,750,000

Monterey-Salinas Transit bus facility and buses ........................ 4,800,000

MUNI buses and facility upgrade ................................................. 5,000,000

Municipal Transit Operators Coalition, bus and bus facilities ... 2,500,000

Omnitrans, City of Yucaipa—the Yucaipa Transit Advancement Project ................................................................................ 1,482,000

Redondo Beach, bus transfer station ............................................ 1,000,000

Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) Transit Centers—Corona, Riverside ............................................................................................ 2,000,000

Roseville Multitransit Center ........................................................ 1,850,000

Sacramento hydrogen bus technology (University of California, 

Davis) ........................................................................................... 1,100,000

Sacramento Regional CNG bus and bus facility .......................... 3,000,000

San Diego bus rapid transit ........................................................... 1,000,000

San Fernando Valley East and Ventura Boulevard park and 

rides ............................................................................................. 1,000,000

San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) zero-emission 

buses ............................................................................................ 2,770,000

Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District (MTD) hybrid bus 

BRT project .................................................................................. 1,500,000

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority clean fuel bus 

program ........................................................................................ 1,500,000

Solano Transportation Authority (STA)—Fairfield/Vacaville 

intermodal station ....................................................................... 1,000,000

Sonoma County CNG fueling facility upgrade ............................. 1,000,000

South Pasadena circulator bus ...................................................... 300,000

140

Sun Line Transit hydrogen refueling station ............................... 2,500,000

Yolobus and Unitrans CNG buses ................................................ 2,600,000

Colorado: 

Colorado Transit Coalition ............................................................. 10,000,000

Connecticut: 

Bridgeport intermodal corridor project ......................................... 4,000,000

Hollyhock station/intermodal transportation center, Norwich ... 4,600,000

New Britain-Hartford busway ....................................................... 2,000,000

New Haven bus maintenance facility ........................................... 2,000,000

New Haven fuel cell and electric bus project ............................... 2,000,000

West Haven intermodal station ..................................................... 2,000,000

Delaware: 

Delaware Transit Corporation ....................................................... 3,000,000

District of Columbia: 

Georgetown University fuel cell transit bus program (TEA21) 4,850,000

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority buses ............ 2,000,000

Florida: 

Citrus Connection ........................................................................... 1,000,000

Collier Area Transit facility ........................................................... 1,500,000

DeLand intermodal center (VOTRAN) ......................................... 2,100,000

Ft. Lauderdale, transit shuttle vehicles ....................................... 2,000,000

Gainesville, mulitmodal transportation center ............................ 2,000,000

Hillsborough Area Regional Transit (HART) ............................... 1,000,000

Jacksonville Transit Authority, buses .......................................... 2,500,000

Key West buses and bus facilities ................................................. 500,000

Lee County Transit Division, bus facility ..................................... 1,500,000

LYNX buses, bus facilities and passenger amenities .................. 3,000,000

Miami Beach intermodal transit center ....................................... 3,000,000

Miam-Dade buses ........................................................................... 3,500,000

Pinellas County ............................................................................... 4,200,000

Miami-Dade County 7th Avenue Bus transfer center ................. 1,000,000

SunTran transit maintenance facility—City of Ocala ................. 1,600,000

Tallahassee (TALTRAN) buses ...................................................... 2,500,000

Tallahassee (TALTRAN) intermodal center ................................. 1,000,000

West Palm Beach, trolley buses .................................................... 2,000,000

Westcoast Florida Bus Coalition ................................................... 8,000,000

Winter Haven transit terminal ..................................................... 1,000,000

Georgia: 

Atlanta, multimodal terminal ........................................................ 4,000,000

Chatham Area Transit ................................................................... 5,300,000

Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, regional express 

bus and bus facilities .................................................................. 2,000,000

Georgia Statewide bus replacement program .............................. 2,000,000

Gwinnett County operators and maintenance facility ................ 2,500,000

Macon intermodal center ............................................................... 3,000,000

Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority clean fuel buses ........... 2,000,000

Hawaii: 

Bus transit centers—Waianae, Mililani, and Wahiawa .............. 2,000,000

Idaho: 

Idaho Transit Coalition .................................................................. 2,635,000

Illinois: 

Illinois Statewide bus and buses facilities ................................... 20,000,000

Indiana: 

Fort Wayne Public Transportation Corporation (Fort Wayne 

Citilink) ........................................................................................ 1,200,000

Indiana Transit Consortium, Bloomington Public Transportation ............................................................................................ 1,060,000

Indianapolis Downtown transit facility ........................................ 4,000,000

Iowa: 

Des Moines MTA bus purchase ..................................................... 2,100,000

Iowa City Transit System, intermodal facility ............................. 2,000,000

State of Iowa buses and bus facilities ........................................... 8,000,000

Kansas: 

City of Wichita, mini-transfer station ........................................... 800,000

Johnson County, transit vehicle life extension and improvement program .............................................................................. 500,000

Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) ............... 1,000,000

Kansas, buses and bus facilities .................................................... 3,000,000

Lawrence Transit System transfer center .................................... 2,500,000

141

Nolte Transit Center in Johnson County ..................................... 250,000

Unified Government transit bus Replacement—Wyandotte 

County/Kansas City .................................................................... 350,000

Wichita Transit Authority ............................................................. 2,000,000

Kentucky: 

Fulton County Transit Authority cutaways ................................. 180,000

Henderson Area Rapid Transit buses ........................................... 96,000

Kentucky statewide, buses and bus facilities ............................... 4,690,000

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet—Community Action groups 1,425,000

Laurel County intermodal facility ................................................. 5,000,000

Paducah Area Transit Authority buses ........................................ 480,000

Pennyrile Allied Community Services transit facility ................. 372,000

Red Cross Wheels ........................................................................... 2,000,000

Southern and Eastern Kentucky transit vehicles ........................ 6,000,000

Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky (TANK) ....................... 3,000,000

Transit Authority of River City ..................................................... 3,000,000

Lousiana: 

Louisiana Public Transit Association buses and bus facilities ... 10,000,000

Maine: 

Maine Statewide buses and bus facilities ..................................... 2,500,000

Westbrook intermodal facility ....................................................... 1,000,000

Maryland 

Maryland Statewide buses and bus facilities ............................... 8,000,000

Massachusetts: 

Attleboro intermodal mixed-use garage facility ........................... 1,000,000

Brockton Area Transit (BTA) intermodal center ......................... 1,000,000

Cape Cod intermodal facilities (Cape and Island Transit Centers) .............................................................................................. 500,000

CTS Northern Tier buses ............................................................... 300,000

Essex County, City of Peabody, MA, buses .................................. 48,000

Essex County, Town of Danvers, MA, buses and senior citicens 

vans .............................................................................................. 66,372

Essex County, City of Lynn, MA, buses and senior citizen vans 320,000

Gallagher intermodal transportation center—Lowell regional 

transit authority ......................................................................... 500,000

Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority, MA, facility improvements .................................................................................. 500,000

Cities of Beverly & Salem, MA, facility improvements ............... 500,000

Cape Ann Transit Authority, MA, buses and trolleys ................. 265,628

Montachusett Area Regional Transit (MART) commuter park 

and ride facility—Leominster .................................................... 1,500,000

Montachusett Area Regional Transit (MART) passenger and 

handicap vans ............................................................................. 850,000

Montachusett commuter facilities in Fitchburg ........................... 3,200,000

Northern Tier intermodal center—Athol ...................................... 350,000

Springfield Union Station intermodal redevelopment project .... 4,000,000

Worcester Regional Transit Authority (WRTA) maintenance facility ............................................................................................. 400,000

Michigan: 

Blue Water Area Transportation commission .............................. 1,000,000

Branch County Transit Authority ................................................. 324,000

Caro Transit Authority .................................................................. 118,000

City of Alma—transportation center intermodal facility and replacement buses .......................................................................... 1,553,000

Detroit Department of Transportation—transit facility .............. 11,000,000

Flint Mass Transit buses ............................................................... 1,000,000

Grand Rapids, buses and bus facilities ......................................... 1,000,000

Ionia Area Transportation Authority dial-a-ride ......................... 304,000

Jackson Transportation Authority, bus maintenance facility ..... 1,000,000

Kalamazoo Metro Transit .............................................................. 1,000,000

Lansing, Capital Area Transit Authority ..................................... 1,000,000

Livingston Essential Transportation Service ............................... 220,000

Ludington Mass Transportation Authority replacement facility 1,050,000

Milan Public Transit ...................................................................... 180,000

Sanilac Transportation Corporation ............................................. 500,000

State of Michigan, bus and bus facilities ...................................... 1,000,000

Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transit (SMART) .... 5,000,000

Washtenaw County, Chelsa Area Transportation System 

(CATS) ......................................................................................... 264,000

142

Yates Township Transit System ................................................... 904,000

Minnesota: 

Dakota, Cedar Avenue project ....................................................... 3,000,000

Duluth Transit Authority bus and bus facilities ......................... 1,000,000

Grand Rapids bus and bus facilities ............................................. 212,000

La Crescent, public transfer hub ................................................... 60,000

Metropolitan Light Rail Transit Joint Powers Board, Rush 

Line Corridor ............................................................................... 1,000,000

Metro Transit .................................................................................. 19,000,000

Minneapolis, 63rd Avenue North park and ride .......................... 1,000,000

Northwest corridor busway ............................................................ 4,000,000

Rochester, buses ............................................................................. 917,600

St. Cloud MTC transit facilities .................................................... 1,000,000

STEELE buses ................................................................................ 48,000

Mississippi: 

Brookhaven multi-modal center .................................................... 2,000,000

Harrison County multimodal facility and shuttle service ........... 1,000,000

Missouri: 

Missouri bus and bus facilities—Dunklin County, Southeast 

Missouri Transporation Service, City of Houston, Scott County, Southeast Missouri State University ................................... 4,000,000

Southwest Missouri State University intermodal transfer facility ................................................................................................. 4,500,000

Springfield Public Utilities ............................................................ 1,000,000

St. Joseph buses ............................................................................. 1,000,000

St. Louis Bi-State Development Agency buses ............................ 4,000,000

Montana: 

District IX—Bozeman Galavan ..................................................... 500,000

North Carolina: 

City of Charlotte buses and bus facilities ..................................... 3,000,000

Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation buses ............. 2,000,000

State of North Carolina, bus and bus facilities ............................ 8,000,000

Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) maintenance facility .............. 500,000

North Dakota: 

North Dakota Statewide Capital Transit ..................................... 2,903,000

Nevada: 

Bus Rapid Transit on South Virginia Street, Reno ..................... 4,900,000

Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) BRT, North Las 

Vegas CIVIS Bus Stops .............................................................. 1,000,000

New Mexico: 

Albuquerque, transit revenue vehicles ......................................... 2,000,000

Alvorado Transportation Center—Phase II .................................. 300,000

New Jersey: 

Bergen County Intermodal facilities and park-and-ride ............. 4,500,000

Central New Jersey Raritan Valley Line park-and-ride ............. 2,000,000

Harrison New Jersey PATH station rehabilitation ..................... 500,000

Montclair community wide bus system ........................................ 1,000,000

Morris County, intermodal park-and-rides facilities ................... 2,500,000

Newark Penn Station intermodal access enhancements ............. 2,000,000

Route 80 Howard Boulevard, New Jersey park-and-ride ............ 500,000

Trenton intermodal station ............................................................ 1,700,000

New York: 

Albany, Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA) 

buses and bus facilities ............................................................... 4,400,000

Brooklyn, downtown intermodal transit district .......................... 1,000,000

Broome County, Binghamton intermodal terminal ..................... 2,000,000

Buffalo intermodal transportation center ..................................... 2,000,000

Central New York Regional Transportation Authority ............... 5,000,000

City of Schenectady buses and bus facilities ................................ 1,000,000

Jamaica intermodal facility ........................................................... 500,000

Lower Hudson Intercounty bus program ...................................... 1,600,000

Nassau County’s Long Island Bus ................................................ 500,000

New Rochelle intermodal center ................................................... 1,500,000

Niagara Transportation Authority (NFTA) buses and bus facilities ................................................................................................ 4,500,000

Oneonta Public Transit buses ....................................................... 1,500,000

Orange County buses ..................................................................... 2,000,000

Rennselaer intermodal station ...................................................... 1,500,000

143

Rochester-Genessee Regional Transportation Authority 

(RGRTA), Rochester Central Station ........................................ 5,000,000

Ulster County rural bus facility .................................................... 1,800,000

Utica Transit Authority buses ....................................................... 1,800,000

Westchester County buses ............................................................. 3,500,000

Ohio: 

Statewide buses and bus facilities ................................................ 15,500,000

Oklahoma: 

Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority 

(COPTA) ....................................................................................... 4,000,000

Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority (MTTA) ............................ 2,000,000

Oklahoma Transit Association ...................................................... 4,000,000

Oregon: 

Albany buses ................................................................................... 220,000

Canby Transit ................................................................................. 200,000

Eugene, Lane Transit District ....................................................... 2,000,000

Portland bus improvements ........................................................... 2,000,000

Rogue Valley Transit District ........................................................ 2,000,000

Wilsonville, South Metro Area Rapid Transit .............................. 500,000

Pennsylvania: 

Adams County, buses ..................................................................... 400,000

Altoona (TEA–21) ........................................................................... 3,000,000

AMTRAN bus and transit system improvements ........................ 1,000,000

Area Transit Authority (ATA) of North Central Pennsylvania 2,000,000

Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority, buses and facilities ........................................................................................... 8,000,000

Bucks County Intermodal facility improvement (SEPTA) .......... 1,000,000

Butler Township/City Joint Municipal Transit multi-modal 

transfer center ............................................................................. 849,000

Cambria County operations and maintenance facility ................ 973,500

Capital Area Transit buses ............................................................ 4,800,000

Endless Mountain Transportation Authority ............................... 335,000

Fayette County transit facility ...................................................... 1,650,000

Frankford Transportation Center, Philadelphia .......................... 1,000,000

Harrisburg Intermodal facility ...................................................... 955,000

Indiana County Transit Authority ................................................ 410,000

Mid-County Transit Authority facilities and equipment ............. 1,000,000

Port Authority of Allegheny County buses (including clean 

fuels) ............................................................................................. 3,000,000

Schuylkill Transportation System buses ...................................... 1,000,000

Somerset County Transportation System ..................................... 160,000

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, paratransit vehicles ............................................................................ 1,000,000

Westmoreland County Transit Authority ..................................... 2,900,000

Williamsport Bureau of Transportation, Lycoming County 

(City bus) ..................................................................................... 2,000,000

Puerto Rico: 

Puerto Rico Metropolitan Bus Authority (MBA), buses and bus 

facilities ........................................................................................ 1,000,000

Rhode Island: 

Rhode Island buses and alternatively fueled infrastructure ...... 3,000,000

South Carolina: 

Myrtle Beach Regional multimodal transit center ...................... 2,250,000

North Charleston regional intermodal transportation center ..... 1,000,000

South Carolina DOT, vehicles and facilities ................................ 7,000,000

Union Station intermodal transportation center, City of Sumter ................................................................................................. 6,100,000

South Dakota: 

South Dakota Statewide, buses and bus facilities ....................... 2,000,000

Tennessee: 

Electric Transit intermodal center project, Knoxville ................. 3,400,000 

State of Tennessee, buses and bus facilities ................................ 10,000,000

Texas: 

Abilene buses and bus facilities, Citylink .................................... 1,400,000

Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) buses 

and bus facilities ......................................................................... 1,000,000

Fort Worth Transportation Authority ........................................... 5,000,000

Galveston, buses ............................................................................. 1,000,000

Houston Advanced Transit Program ............................................. 5,000,000

144

Laredo, administrative, operations, and maintenance facility ... 3,500,000

Odessa and Midland, alternatively fueled buses ......................... 2,000,000

San Antonio, VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority ...................... 1,000,000

Texas Tech University park-and-ride, buses ................................ 3,750,000

Waco Transit maintenance and administration facility, buses .. 3,866,000

Woodlands District park-and-rides ............................................... 2,400,000

Utah: 

State of Utah, bus and bus facilities ............................................. 1,990,000

Vermont: 

Winooski Falls downtown multimodal transportation center ..... 1,000,000

Virginia: 

Arlington bus transfer stations ..................................................... 600,000

Greater Roanoke Transit Company (GRTC) buses ...................... 2,104,000

Hampton Roads regional bus plan ................................................ 1,000,000

Petersburg Area Transit ................................................................ 1,500,000

Potomac Rappahannock Transportation Commission buses ....... 2,100,000

Potomac Yard Transitway ............................................................. 1,600,000

Virgin Islands: 

Virgin Islands Transit (VITRAN) buses ....................................... 1,000,000

Washington: 

Clark County, C–TRAN Vancouver mall transit center .............. 557,000

Grant Transit Authority ................................................................ 452,000

Grays Harbor Transportation minibuses ...................................... 144,000

Intercity Transit (Thurston County) fare collection equipment 500,000

Issaquah Highlands park-and-ride ............................................... 2,800,000

Jefferson Transit facilities ............................................................. 2,000,000

King Street Station multimodal facility ....................................... 500,000

Lakewood SR 512 park-and-ride expansion ................................. 3,000,000

Mason County Transportation Authority facilities ...................... 360,000

Mercer Island transit center, park-and-ride ................................ 1,000,000

Mount Vernon multi-modal facility and buses ............................. 2,000,000

Pullman Transit buses ................................................................... 1,150,000

West Virginia: 

Huntington, Tri-State Transit Authority ..................................... 1,000,000

Monongalia Courthouse Annex in Morgantown, intermodal 

parking facility ............................................................................ 7,000,000

Wisconsin: 

Wisconsin Statewide bus and bus facilities .................................. 24,000,000

Wyoming: 

Wyoming Department of Transportation buses and bus facilities ................................................................................................ 2,500,000

Bevill State Community College transit project.—Funding provided to Bevill State Community College transit project may also 

be made available to Jasper, Alabama for work in conjunction with 

this project. 

Dulles Corridor park-and-ride.—Funding provided to the Dulles 

Corridor park-and-ride express bus program in fiscal year 2000 can 

also be used for the Reston East park-and-ride project in Virginia. 

Fort Worth intermodal center park and ride facility.—Funding 

provided to the Fort Worth intermodal center park and ride facility 

in 2002 shall be used to facilitate the finish out of the intermodal 

connections into downtown Fort Worth and to enhance the linkage 

of TRE with the T’s bus operation and park and ride elements occurring at two locations: the ITC (and geographically related areas 

like the 7th Street parking lot and Alarm Supply Building) and a 

larger facility at the Texas and Pacific Station. 

Kansas buses.—Funding provided for the Wyandotte County 

buses and the Kansas City Joblinks in fiscal year 2001 shall be 

made available to the Unified Government of Wyandotte County/

Kansas City to replace buses. 

Commonwealth of Kentucky.—Of the $4,690,000 provided for 

statewide bus and bus facilities, $628,160 shall be for the Bluegrass Community Action Services, $58,400 shall be for the City of 

145

Frankfort; $760,000 shall be for Kentucky Rivers Foothills Development Council; $138,000 shall be for the Community Action Council 

of Fayette/Lexington, $639,000 shall be for the Lexington Red 

Cross, $66,000 shall be for East Kentucky Independent Service Organization, and $2,400,000 shall be for Lexington Transit Authority. 

Mt. Sinai Intermodal Center.—Funding provided for the Mt. 

Sinai Intermodal Center in fiscal year 1992 shall also be made 

available to the Miami Beach, Florida intermodal facility. 

State of Illinois.—Within the funding allocated to the State of Il- linois, $2,000,000 should be provided to begin the refurbishment of 

the Dan Ryan station.

State of Michigan.—Of the $1,000,000 provided to the State of Michigan, $261,100 shall be for Alger County public transit, 

$350,100 shall be for Charlevoix County public transit, $124,900 

shall be for Delta Area Transit Authority, $51,000 shall be for 

Houghton motor transit line, $38,900 shall be for Ontonogan County public transit, $47,000 shall be for the City of Sault Ste Marie 

dial-a-ride, and $127,000 shall be for Schoolcraft County public 

transportation. 

Swampscott buses.—Funding provided for Swampscott buses in 

fiscal year 2000 may also be made available to Lynnfield, Massachusetts to replace buses. 

State of Ohio.—Within the funding provided to the State of Ohio, $1,000,000 should be provided to the East Side transit center in 

Cleveland, $2,000,000 for the multimodal transportation center in 

Kent, and $4,000,000 for the Government Square transit center in 

Cincinnati. 

Sierra Madre Villa Intermodal Center.—Funding provided for the 

Sierra Madre Villa Intermodal Center in fiscal year 2002 shall also 

be made available to the Los Angles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) for bus and bus related facilities in 

the LACMTA’s service area. 

FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION

The accompanying bill provides $1,214,400,000 from the capital 

investment grants program to modernize existing rail transit systems. These funds are to be distributed, consistent with the provisions of TEA–21, as follows:

SECTION 5309 FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION APPORTIONMENTS 

State 

Fiscal year— Change from fiscal 

year 2002 2002 2003 Estimate 

Alaska ................................................................................. $8,974,767 $2,423,937 ¥$6,550,830

Arizona ................................................................................ 1,607,863 1,845,317 237,454

California ............................................................................ 125,266,567 139,151,518 13,884,951

Colorado .............................................................................. 1,962,656 2,261,031 298,375

Connecticut ......................................................................... 39,070,586 40,546,804 1,476,218

Delaware ............................................................................. 931,285 0 1¥931,285

District of Columbia ........................................................... 48,787,806 57,562,724 8,774,918

Florida ................................................................................. 16,840,663 19,685,468 2,844,805

Georgia ................................................................................ 23,114,533 27,042,153 3,927,620

Hawaii ................................................................................. 1,094,132 1,304,537 210,405

Illinois ................................................................................. 125,263,153 131,151,605 5,888,452

Indiana ................................................................................ 8,429,345 8,972,016 542,671

Louisiana ............................................................................. 2,881,274 2,972,818 91,544

Maryland ............................................................................. 26,748,405 29,372,229 2,623,824

146

SECTION 5309 FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION APPORTIONMENTS—Continued

State 

Fiscal year— Change from fiscal 

year 2002 2002 2003 Estimate 

Massachusetts .................................................................... 71,701,594 75,767,529 4,065,935

Michigan ............................................................................. 487,176 575,906 88,730

Minnesota ............................................................................ 5,094,649 5,896,427 801,778

Missouri ............................................................................... 4,265,676 5,008,671 742,995

New Jersey ........................................................................... 99,960,024 104,313,737 4,353,713

New York ............................................................................. 349,553,296 368,542,791 18,989,495

Ohio ..................................................................................... 17,355,872 18,427,652 1,071,780

Oregon ................................................................................. 4,167,985 4,930,300 762,315

Pennsylvania ....................................................................... 95,692,115 100,301,564 1 4,609,449

Puerto Rico .......................................................................... 2,313,155 2,722,582 409,427

Rhode Island ....................................................................... 84,705 98,373 13,668

Tennessee ............................................................................ 329,166 406,222 77,056

Texas ................................................................................... 7,887,580 9,197,893 1,310,313

Virginia ................................................................................ 15,441,327 18,194,293 2,752,966

Washington ......................................................................... 19,519,362 22,695,789 3,176,427

Wisconsin ............................................................................ 756,488 884,114 127,626

Total Apportioned .................................................. 1,125,583,205 1,202,256,000 76,672,975

Oversight (1 percent) .......................................................... 11,364,000 12,144,000 7,938,000

Grand Total ............................................................ 1,136,947,205 1,214,400,000 84,610,795

1 The 1990 census urbanized areas of Wilmington, DE–NJ–MD–PA and Philadelphia, PA–NJ were merged to form the Philadelphia, PA–NJ–

DE–MD under the 2000 census. The FY 2003 apportionment for this urbanized area was allocated to Pennsylvania. 

NEW STARTS

The accompanying bill provides $1,214,400,000 for new starts. 

These funds are available for preliminary engineering, right-of-way 

acquisition, project management, oversight, and construction of 

new systems and extensions. TEA–21 requires that no more than 

eight percent of the funding provided for new starts be available 

for preliminary engineering and design activities. Funds made 

available in this Act for new starts are to be supplemented with 

$23,436,971 from projects included in previous appropriations Acts. 

The Committee is aware that these funds are not needed due to 

changing local circumstances or are in excess of project requirements. The bill, therefore, reallocates the following unexpended 

sums from previous appropriations Acts, the fiscal years of which 

are noted in parentheses:

Burlington-Essex, Vermont commuter rail project (1998, 1999) 

Stamford, Connecticut fixed guideway connector (2000) 

West Trenton, New Jersey rail project (2000) 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Capital Area Transit, Corridor One commuter rail 

project (2000) 

Charleston, South Carolina Monobeam corridor project (1999) 

Birmingham, Alabama transit corridor (2000) 

Cleveland-Berea, Ohio red line extension to Hopkins International Airport 

(1999) 

Dayton, Ohio light rail study (2000) 

Albuquerque, New Mexico light rail project (1999) 

Greater Albuquerque, New Mexico mass rail transit project (2000)

The Committee, however, directs the FTA not to reallocate funds 

provided in the fiscal year 2000 Department of Transportation and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Act or previous Acts for the following new start projects:

Roaring Fork Valley, Colorado project (2000) 

Twin Cities, Minnesota, transitways project 

Altamount, California commuter rail project 

147

Dulles, Virginia corridor project 

Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee, Wisconsin rail extension project

The Committee makes these exceptions based on FTA information that these funds are likely to be awarded by the first quarter 

of fiscal year 2003 or soon thereafter. 

For those projects where Congress extends the availability of 

funds that remain unobligated after three years and would otherwise be available for reallocation at the discretion of the administrator, such funds are extended only for one additional year, absent 

further congressional direction. The Committee will not extend 

projects again that have already been extended in previous Appropriations bills. Those projects have had four years to expend their 

balances, and if they still remain unable to do so, the Committee 

believes it is better to allocate these funds to projects that can obligate these funds in a more timely fashion. 

New starts report.—The Committee was displeased with the untimely submission of FTA’s annual report on new starts projects. 

TEA–21 required this report to be submitted in conjunction with 

the budget. Yet year after year, this report is not submitted until 

months after that date. For example, the 2002 new starts report 

was provided to the Committee in May, three months after release 

of the budget request. Without a timely submission of this information, the Committee cannot make well informed decisions about 

new starts projects. As a result, the Committee has included bill 

language that requires FTA to submit its annual new starts report 

with the initial submission of the President’s budget request. If the 

report is not submitted, FTA’s administrative expenses appropria- tion will be reduced by $100,000 per day. 

Appropriations for full funding grant agreements.—Before passage of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 

(ISTEA), which was the precursor to TEA–21, there were less than 

10 new starts projects that had full funding grant agreements 

(FFGAs). Since 1993, a total of 47 FFGAs have been signed or recommended in Presidential budgets. Currently, there are 26 existing 

FFGAs. The total capital cost for these projects is $13.1 billion and 

the federal commitment is $6.9 billion. 

To meet the increasing demand for transit, more communities 

than ever are planning and designing new starts and other transit 

projects to add capacity and replace their aging facilities and equipment. As of February 2002, in FTA’s new starts pipeline, there are 

over 100 projects in alternatives analysis; another 39 have been approved for entry into preliminary engineering; and an additional 12 

projects have been approved for entry into final design. Collectively, these projects reflect an estimated investment of $42 billion. 

Of that total, the project sponsors are planning to seek approximately $20 billion of new starts funds. Many of the projects in final 

design and preliminary engineering will be seeking an FFGA in the 

next two years. Currently, federal resources are not available to 

fund even a fraction of these projects. 

In fiscal year 2003, of the $1,214,400,000 guaranteed for new 

starts projects, approximately $1,046,870,000 (86 percent) is allocated to projects that currently have an FFGA. In addition, approximately $10,296,000 is reserved for Alaska and Hawaii ferries. 

This leaves approximately $157,230,000 in truly discretionary 

funds that can be allocated to new starts projects without FFGAs. 

148

Since demand has so quickly outstripped available resources, the 

Committee has had to make difficult decisions in this area. The 

Committee recommendation adheres to the following guidelines: 

First, the Committee has tried to fund every project that has a current FFGA at its funding schedule (commonly referred to as the 

schedule 6) unless the project is experiencing financial or construction problems. Second, the Committee has tried to complete as 

many current FFGA commitments as possible so that additional resources will be freed up for fiscal year 2004. Third, because of the 

limited dollars available for final design and preliminary engineering activities, no funding has been provided for projects currently 

in the alternatives analysis phase. Local project sponsors of new 

rail extensions or busways may use section 5307 formula funds or 

section 5303 metropolitan planning funds for alternatives analysis 

activities rather than seek section 5309 discretionary set-asides. 

Fourth, the Committee reiterates its direction originally agreed to 

in the fiscal year 2002 conference report that FTA should not sign 

any FFGAs after September 30, 2002 that have a maximum federal 

share higher than 60 percent. Based on this earlier direction, significant appropriations have been provided for those projects in 

final design or preliminary engineering that have a federal share 

of no more than 60 percent. Less, or in some instances no, funding 

has been provided for those projects that have a federal share 

above 60 percent. The Committee strongly encourages the impacted 

projects to revisit the amount of local funding being contributed 

and seek effective ways to increase their local share. In total, the $1,238,818,050 provided in this Act, together with 

previous appropriations, are to be distributed as follows:

Project Name Recommend 

Alaska/Hawaii ferries ............................................................................ $10,296,000

Atlanta, GA, North Springs (North Line Extension) .......................... 16,110,000

Baltimore, MD, Central LRT Double Tracking Project ...................... 10,500,000

Boston, MA, South Boston Piers Transitway ...................................... 681,824

Charlotte, NC, South Corridor Light Rail Transit Project ................. 14,000,000

Chicago, IL, Douglas Branch Reconstruction ...................................... 55,000,000

Chicago, IL, North Central Corridor Commuter Rail ......................... 20,000,000

Chicago, IL, Ravenswood Reconstruction ............................................ 4,000,000

Chicago, IL, South West Corridor Commuter Rail ............................. 20,000,000

Chicago, IL, Union Pacific West Line Extension ................................ 12,000,000

Cleveland, OH, Euclid Corridor Transportation project ..................... 4,000,000

Dallas, TX, North Central Light Rail Extension ................................ 70,000,000

Denver, CO, Southeast Corridor LRT .................................................. 70,000,000

Ft. Lauderdale, FL, Tri-County Commuter Rail Upgrades ................ 39,689,213

Little Rock, AR, River Rail Streetcar Project ...................................... 700,000

Los Angeles, CA, Eastside Corridor LRT ............................................ 8,200,000

Los Angeles, CA, North Hollywood Red Line ...................................... 40,485,912

Lowell, MA-Nashua, NH, Commuter Rail Extension ......................... 5,000,000

Maryland, MARC Commuter Rail Improvements .............................. 11,500,000

Memphis, TN, Medical Center Rail Extension .................................... 15,610,000

Minneapolis, MN, Hiawatha Corridor LRT ......................................... 60,000,000

Minneapolis, MN, Northstar Corridor Commuter Rail ...................... 7,000,000

Nashville, TN, East Corridor Commuter Rail ..................................... 6,000,000

New Jersey, Hudson-Bergen Light Rail—MOS1 ................................ 19,200,000

New Jersey, Hudson-Bergen Light Rail—MOS2 ................................ 50,000,000

New Orleans, LA, Canal Street Streetcar ........................................... 22,000,000

New Orleans, LA, Desire Corridor ....................................................... 1,200,000

New York, NY, Long Island Rail Road, East Side Access Project ..... 15,000,000

New York, NY, Second Avenue Subway .............................................. 4,000,000

Newark-Elizabeth, NJ, Rail Link ......................................................... 60,000,000

Northern Indiana, South Shore Commuter Rail project .................... 3,000,000

Oceanside-Escondido, CA, Rail Corridor .............................................. 15,000,000

Orange County, CA, Centerline Light Rail Project ............................. 1,800,000

149

Project Name Recommend 

Phoenix, AZ, Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail ........................ 18,000,000

Pittsburgh, PA, North Shore Connector LRT ...................................... 7,025,000

Pittsburgh, PA, Stage II LRT Reconstruction ..................................... 26,250,000

Portland, OR, Interstate MAX LRT Extension ................................... 70,000,000

Puget Sound, WA, Sounder Commuter Rail ........................................ 5,000,000

Raleigh, NC, Phase I Regional Rail Project ........................................ 5,000,000

Salt Lake City, UT, CBD to University LRT ...................................... 68,760,000

Salt Lake City, UT, Medical Center Extension ................................... 20,000,000

Salt Lake City, UT, North-South LRT ................................................. 718,006

San Diego, CA, Mission Valley East LRT Extension .......................... 65,000,000

San Francisco, CA, BART Extension to San Francisco Airport ......... 100,000,000

San Francisco, CA, Third Street Light Rail Project, phase II ........... 1,750,000

San Jose, CA, Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Project ............ 250,000

San Juan, PR, Tren Urbano ................................................................. 59,740,000

St. Louis, MO, Metrolink St. Clair Extension ..................................... 3,368,422

Washington, D.C./MD, Largo Extension .............................................. 60,000,000

Washington, D.C., Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project ................. 35,000,000

Atlanta, Georgia, north line extension project.—The Metropolitan 

Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) is constructing a 2.3-

mile, 2-station extension of the north line from the Dunwoody station to North Springs. This extension will serve the rapidly-growing 

area north of Atlanta, which includes Perimeter Center and north 

Fulton County, and will connect this area with the rest of the region by providing better transit service for both commuters and 

inner-city residents traveling to expanding job opportunities. On 

December 20, 1994, FTA issued an FFGA committing a total of 

$305,010,000 in new starts funding to this project. In the conference report to the fiscal year 2000 appropriations act, FTA was 

instructed to amend the FFGA for this project to incorporate a 

change in scope as authorized under Section 3030(d)(2) of TEA–21. 

On March 2, 2000, FTA amended the FFGA to include 28 additional railcars, a multilevel parking facility in lieu of a surface 

parking lot, and enhancements to customer security and amenity 

measures at the Sandy Springs and North Springs stations. These 

changes will increase the total project cost to $463,180,000, and the 

Federal share to $370,540,000. Of the $65,530,000 increase in Federal funding, $10,670,000 will be applied from unexpended funds 

identified from cost savings on the Dunwoody section of the north 

line extension. Including the prior years funds, a total of 

$354,340,000 has been appropriated for this project through fiscal 

year 2002. This leaves $16,110,000 million remaining in the 

amended FFGA for this project. The Committee has recommended 

$16,110,000 in fiscal year 2003 to complete the federal commitment 

to this project. 

Baltimore, Maryland, central light rail transit double track 

project.—The Maryland Mass Transit Administration is upgrading 

9.4 miles of track in designated areas of the Baltimore central corridor light rail line that are currently single track. The central corridor is 29 miles long and operates between Hunt Valley in the 

north to Cromwell/Glen Burnie in the south, serving Baltimore 

City and Baltimore and Anne Arundel Counties, with extensions 

providing direct service to the Amtrak Penn Station and the Baltimore-Washington International Airport. The proposed project will 

double-track eight sections of the central corridor between 

Timonium and Cromwell Station/Glen Burnie, for a total of 9.4 

miles. Although no new stations are required, the addition of a second track will require construction of second station platforms at 

150

four stations. Other elements included in the project are bridge and 

crossing improvements, a bi-directional signal system with traffic 

signal preemption on Howard Street, and catenary and other 

equipment and systems. The double tracking will be constructed almost entirely in existing right-of-way. The total cost of the doubletracking and related improvements is estimated at $153,700,000. 

The FFGA for this project was awarded in July, 2001, with a federal commitment of $120,000,000 (78 percent) in section 5309 new 

starts funds. A total of $21,490,000 in section 5309 new starts 

funds has been appropriated for this project through fiscal year 

2002. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends 

$10,500,000. Due to the volume of projects seeking an FFGA, the 

Committee cannot fully support those projects that are seeking 

such a high federal share from the new starts account. 

Boston, Massachusetts, South Boston Piers transitway project.— The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) is developing an underground transitway to connect the existing transit 

system with the South Boston Piers area. The Piers area, which is 

connected to the central business district (CBD) by three local 

bridges, is undergoing significant development. A 1.5-mile tunnel, 

which is planned to be constructed in two phases, will extend from 

the existing Boylston Station to the World Trade Center; five underground stations will provide connections to the MBTA’s red, orange and green lines. Dual-mode trackless trolleys will operate in 

the transitway tunnel and on surface routes in the eastern end of 

the Piers area. Phase 1 of this project consists of a 1-mile, threestation bus tunnel between South Station and the World Trade 

Center, with an intermediate stop at Fan Pier. Part of the construction is being coordinated with the Central Artery highway 

project. South Station serves the existing MBTA red line, as well 

as Amtrak and commuter rail and bus service. The total estimated 

cost of phase I is $601,000,000. Phase II would extend the 

transitway to Boylston Station on the green line and the Chinatown Station on the orange line. Section 3035(j) of ISTEA directed 

FTA to enter into an FFGA for this project. On November 5, 1994, 

an FFGA was issued for phase I, committing a total of 

$330,730,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. Through fiscal 

year 2002, a total of $330,050,000 has been provided for this 

project. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has provided $681,924, 

which will fulfill the federal commitment to this project. 

Charlotte, North Carolina, south corridor light rail transit 

project.—The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS), in cooperation with the City of Charlotte, is proposing to design and construct 

an 11-mile light rail transit (LRT) line extending from Uptown 

Charlotte to the Town of Pineville, North Carolina, near the South 

Carolina border. The proposed project is currently planned to operate within portions of existing Norfolk-Southern (NS) railroad 

rights-of-way (ROW), including sharing ROW with the city’s existing downtown trolley system. The South corridor is an area generally paralleling Interstate 77 along NS railroad ROW in the City 

of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County. A 3.7-mile portion of the 

proposed system—between Uptown and Scaleybark Road—would 

operate on abandoned NS ROW owned by the City of Charlotte. 

The remainder of the planned system (7.5 miles) would operate on 

separate tracks generally paralleling NS ROW. The proposed 

151

project also includes construction of 16 stations, purchase of up to 

15 light rail vehicles and the construction of a light rail vehicle 

maintenance and storage facility. The stations at the southern terminus of the line would include park-and-ride lots and serve as 

transfer points for local and feeder bus service. Total capital costs 

for the south corridor project are estimated at $348,200,000 million. The federal share is estimated to be $174,100,000 (50 percent). Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated 

$19,780,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for this effort. For fiscal year 2003, the bill includes $14,000,000 for this project. 

Chicago, Illinois, Douglas branch reconstruction project.—The 

Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) is completing a reconstruction of 

the Douglas Branch heavy rail line. Part of CTA’s blue line, the 11-

station Douglas Branch extends 6.6 miles from Cermack Avenue to 

a point just west of downtown Chicago. Dating to the 19th century, 

the oldest segment on the line opened in 1896 and the ‘‘newest’’ in 

1910, though numerous improvements and upgrades were made 

through the mid–1980s. Age-related deterioration has resulted in 

high maintenance and operating costs on the line, as well as declining service. The Douglas Branch is authorized by section 

3030(a)(106) of TEA–21. The total capital cost of the Douglas branch reconstruction project is estimated at $482,600,000. In January 2001, FTA and CTA entered into an FFGA that commits a 

total of $320,100,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to this 

project. A total of $52,200,000 has been appropriated through fiscal 

year 2002. The Committee has included $55,000,000 for this project 

in fiscal year 2003. 

Chicago, Illinois, North Central corridor commuter rail.—The 

North Central corridor extends from downtown Chicago to Antioch 

on the Illinois-Wisconsin border, and traverses suburban Lake 

County. Metra, the commuter rail division of the Regional Transportation Authority of northeastern Illinois, is seeking to add a second mainline track along 12 miles of the 53-mile North Central 

Service commuter rail line and a 2.3-mile stretch of third track. 

The proposed project also includes track and signal upgrades, construction of five new stations, parking facilities, rail yard expansion 

and purchase of one new diesel locomotive and eight bi-level passenger cars. Section 3030(a)(10) of TEA–21 authorized the North 

Central project. The major investment study for this project was 

completed in August 1998, and a locally preferred alternative was 

selected shortly thereafter. FTA approved the North Central corridor to initiate preliminary engineering and the environmental review process in December 1998. FTA issued a finding of no significant impact on the environmental assessment in May 2000 and allowed the project to enter into final design in October 2000. The 

total capital cost of this project is estimated at $235,532,216. FTA 

awarded Metra an FFGA on November 5, 2001 for a total of 

$135,319,330 in new starts funding. Through fiscal year 2002, a 

total of $51,260,000 has been appropriated for this project. The 

Committee recommends $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. 

Chicago, Illinois, Ravenswood reconstruction project.—The Chicago Transit Authority is proposing to reconstruct existing platforms and stations on the existing Ravenswood (brown) line to accommodate eight-car trains. The brown line extends 9.3 miles from 

the north side of Chicago to the ‘‘loop elevated’’ in downtown ChiVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00151 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
152

cago and includes 19 stations. The majority of the brown line is operated on an elevated structure (8.1 miles) except one portion near 

the north end of the line, which operates at grade (1.2 miles). The 

brown line was built between 1900 and 1907. The line currently 

carries approximately 104,000 average weekday boardings; however, current station and platform size prohibit CTA from increasing capacity on the line to handle increased demand. The proposed 

project would expand stations and platforms and straighten curves 

to allow CTA to operate longer trains, which would increase the capacity of the line. Section 3030(a)(11) of TEA–21 authorized the 

project. In November 1997, CTA included the Ravenswood line expansion project in the region’s financially constrained long-range 

transportation plan. CTA is currently completing an examination of 

the environmental impacts and benefits related to the proposed 

project, including historical preservation issues related to several 

stations that would be reconstructed as part of this project. The environmental review process is scheduled for completion in 2002. 

Total capital costs are currently estimated at $476,000,000. To 

date, Congress has appropriated $7,890,000 in section 5309 new 

starts funds for the project. The Committee recommends 

$4,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. 

Chicago, Illinois, Southwest corridor commuter rail.—Metra is 

planning to extend the existing Southwest commuter rail line. The 

29-mile Southwest line provides service from Orland Park, Illinois, 

to downtown Chicago. This project would extend the line 11 miles 

from the existing 179th street station in Orland Park, southwest to 

Manhattan, Illinois. Also included in this project are the construction of three miles of a second mainline track, two additional stations and parking facilities, and multiple track, signal, and station 

improvements. The project also includes expansion of two existing 

rail yards, construction of a third rail yard, rehabilitation of several 

railroad bridges, and the purchase of two diesel locomotives and 13 

bi-level passenger cars. Finally, the downtown Chicago terminal 

would be relocated from Union Station to the LaSalle street station 

as part of this project. Section 3030(a)(12) of TEA–21 authorized 

the ‘‘Southwest extension’’. The total cost of this project is estimated at $198,100,000. A FFGA was signed on November 5, 2001 

authorizing $103,020,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. To 

date, Congress has appropriated $38,500,000 to the project. The 

Committee has provided $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. 

Chicago, Illinois, Union Pacific West line extension project.—Chicago’s Metra commuter rail division is planning additional extensions and improvements on its Union Pacific west commuter rail 

line. The Union Pacific west project, also known as the Central 

Kane corridor, is an extension of the existing 35-mile Union Pacific 

west line, which currently provides service between Geneva and 

downtown Chicago. This project would extend the line 8.5 miles 

west to Elburn, with two new stations serving Elburn and La Fox. 

The extension itself will use existing railroad track and right-ofway currently used by both Metra and the Union Pacific freight 

railroad. The scope of the project includes multiple track and signal 

improvements, construction of two new stations and associated 

parking facilities, a new train yard, and the purchase of one diesel 

locomotive and eight bi-level passenger cars. This project will link 

rapidly growing communities to the west of Chicago with the major 

153

employment centers in Chicago. Section 3030(a)(13) of TEA–21 authorizes this project as the Chicago ‘‘west line expansion’’. The total 

capital costs of the Union Pacific west extension and improvements 

project is estimated at $134,600,000. An FFGA was issued on November 5, 2001 that will provide a total of $80,760,000 in federal 

new starts funding. Through fiscal year 2002, a total of 

$32,840,000 has been appropriated. A total of $12,000,000 has been 

recommended for fiscal year 2003. 

Cleveland, Ohio, Euclid corridor transportation project.—The 

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) is proposing to design and construct a 9.8-mile transit corridor incorporating exclusive bus rapid transit lanes and related capital improvements on Euclid Avenue from Public Square in downtown 

Cleveland east to University Circle. The proposed project is known 

as the Euclid corridor transportation project (ECTP). The ECTP incorporates a series of transit improvements including an exclusive 

center median busway along Euclid Avenue from Public Square to 

University Circle, improvements to East 17th/East 18th Street, as 

well as a ‘‘transit zone’’ on St. Clair and Superior avenues utilizing 

exclusive transit lanes. The proposed busway will provide service 

to the University Circle area and continue into the city of East 

Cleveland, terminating at the Stokes/Windermere rapid transit station. GCRTA proposes to operate sixty-foot articulated hybrid-electric buses with both left and righthand side doors for access and 

egress of patrons on the corridor. The vehicles will have access to 

the entire length of the proposed corridor. However, conventional 

buses will not be able to access Euclid Avenue in the central business district. GCRTA estimates that 29,500 average weekday 

boardings will use the ECTP in the forecast year (2025). 

Section 3035 of ISTEA authorized FTA to enter into a multiyear 

grant agreement for development of the Dual Hub Corridor, originally considered as a rail link between downtown and University 

Circle. In November 1995, the GCRTA Board of Trustees selected 

the ECTP as the locally preferred alternative (LPA), which included a busway and the rehabilitation and relocation of several 

existing rapid rail stations. In December 1995, the Northeast Ohio 

areawide coordinating agency (local metropolitan planning organization) adopted a resolution supporting the ECTP. In 1999, GCRTA 

reconfigured the scope of the ECTP to incorporate only the construction of a busway along Euclid Avenue. The rapid rail elements 

have been eliminated from the ECTP proposal for Section 5309 

New Starts funding. The environmental review process is scheduled for completion in 2002. Total capital costs for the ECTP are 

estimated at $228,600,000 (escalated dollars), of which Cleveland is 

expected to seek $135,000,000 in new starts funding for the project 

(59 percent). Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated 

$19,390,000 in section 5309 new start funds for the Euclid corridor 

transportation project. Of this amount, $4,720,000 was rescinded or 

reprogrammed by Congress because of project delays. For fiscal 

year 2003, the Committee has provided $4,000,000 for final design 

and construction activities. 

Dallas, Texas, north central light rail transit extension project.—

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) has initiated construction of the 

north central corridor light rail transit (LRT) extension to the region’s 20.5 mile starter system. DART’s starter system opened in 

154

three phases from June 1996 to May 1997 (one underground station was opened in 2000). This extension, part of a 20-year, 

$4,800,000,000 transit capital program adopted in fiscal year 1998, 

measures 12.5 miles long from the current northern terminus at 

Park Lane station to the new terminal in Plano. The extension has 

nine stations. Although some single track sections were originally 

planned, the DART Board of Directors in 1997 approved the double 

tracking of the entire extension. DART estimates that over 17,000 

daily riders, of which 6,800 will be new riders, are expected to use 

the extension in the year 2010. The project is estimated to cost 

$517,200,000. FTA entered into an FFGA with DART for the north 

central extension project on October 6, 1999 with a section 5309 

new starts commitment of $333,000,000. The project is currently in 

the construction phase. An associated northeast LRT extension is 

being built solely with local funds. The project has been included 

in the regionally adopted metropolitan transportation plan and 

transportation improvement program that conforms with the state 

implementation plan for air quality. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $230,910,000 in section 5309 new start 

funds to this project. For fiscal year 2003, the bill includes 

$70,000,000 for this project. 

Denver, Colorado, Southeast corridor light rail transit project.— The Regional Transportation District (RTD) and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) are implementing a 19.12 mile, 13-

station light rail line between downtown Denver and Lincoln Avenue in Douglas County, with a LRT spur line along I–225 to Parker 

Road in Arapahoe County. The double track system is proposed to 

operate on an exclusive, grade-separated right-of-way and connect 

with the existing 5.3-mile central corridor light rail line in downtown Denver at the existing Broadway station. At I–25 and Broadway, the southeast corridor would also connect with RTD’s southwest corridor light rail line that is currently in operation. The total 

capital cost of this project is estimated at $879,300,000. Revenue 

service is projected to begin by June 30, 2008. Section 3030(a)(23) 

of TEA–21 authorized this project. FTA issued an FFGA for this 

project on November 17, 2000, which will provide a total of 

$525,000,000 in section 5309 new starts funds. A total of 

$60,860,000 has been appropriated to this project through fiscal 

year 2002. The Committee recommends $70,000,000 for this project 

in fiscal year 2003. 

Dulles Corridor, Virginia, bus rapid transit project.—The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) proposes to construct, under the technical guidance of the Washington 

Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), an approximately 

23 mile bus rapid transit (BRT) system as an interim step to rail 

in the Dulles Corridor. The Dulles Corridor, a rapidly growing suburban area west of Washington, DC, contains major regional employment and residential centers, including Tysons Corner, Reston 

Town Center, Dulles International Airport, the town of Herndon, 

the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum annex, and new commercial and residential development in eastern Loudoun County. The 

BRT project is proposed as a minimum operating segment (MOS) 

of the Dulles Corridor rapid transit project, which will phase in implementation of rapid transit technologies throughout the corridor. 

The proposed BRT system will be developed as an interim step to 

155

rail, using the reserved lanes of the Dulles airport access road 

(DAAR) as a fixed guideway for advanced technology buses. BRT 

service will be provided between the Metrorail orange line and the 

western regional park and ride lot located at Route 606 in Loudoun 

County. The proposed BRT system will include construction of at 

least three transit stations convertible to rail stations located in 

the median of the DAAR, stations at major park and ride lots within the corridor and Tysons Corner, and interface with Metrorail at 

Falls Church. BRT service is scheduled for operation in 2006 at an 

estimated cost of $389,100,000 (escalated). The fully built rail 

project is scheduled for operation in 2010 at an estimated cost of 

$3,500,000,000 (escalated). Average weekday boardings for the BRT 

are estimated to be 23,000 in 2020 with 13,600 daily new riders. 

A major investment study (MIS) for the corridor was issued in 

1996, recommending construction of a Metro-like rail system. The 

Dulles Corridor Task Force issued the Dulles Corridor MIS refinement in July 1999, reaffirming development of a rail system but 

with interim development of a BRT system. The phased BRT/rail 

system was adopted by the national capital region transportation 

planning board and included in the metropolitan Washington region constrained long range plan in October 1999. VDRPT and 

WMATA submitted a request to initiate preliminary engineering 

for the BRT MOS and to initiate the NEPA process for the full Dulles Corridor rapid transit project to FTA in November 1999. 

The recently completed draft environmental impact statement 

identifies 5 alternatives for the project including a baseline/nobuild alternative, bus rapid transit, metrorail, a combined BRT/

Metrorail, or a phased implementation. The public hearings on the 

project were completed on August 28, 2002, with a final approval 

date set for late fall by the Virginia Commonwealth Transportation 

Board. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated 

$115,680,000 for this project in section 5309 new starts funds. For 

fiscal year 2003, the bill provides $35,000,000 for preliminary engineering, final design and construction activities. 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Tri-Rail commuter rail upgrades 

project.—The Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) operates a 71.7-mile regional transportation system connecting Palm 

Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties in south Florida. This 

area has a population of over four million, nearly one-third of the 

total population of Florida. Tri-Rail is proposing improvements to 

enhance significantly the service reliability of commuter rail in the 

rail corridor owned by the Florida Department of Transportation 

(FDOT). Tri-Rail intends to construct a second mainline track, rehabilitate the signal system, and provide station and parking improvements. In addition, project costs include acquisition of new 

rolling stock, improvements to the Hialeah maintenance yard facility, and construction of a new, northern maintenance and layover 

facility. The proposed project will allow Tri-Rail to operate 20-

minute headways during peak commuter hours, as opposed to the 

one-hour headways that now exist. On May 16, 2000, FTA issued 

an FFGA for segment 5 of the double track corridor improvement 

program, which includes construction of 44.31 miles of the second 

mainline track and upgrades to the existing grade crossing system 

along the entire 71.7-mile south Florida rail corridor. It is expected 

to open for revenue service in March, 2005. The first four segVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
156

ments, upgrading the Hialeah maintenance yard and replacing the 

New River bridge, while part of the overall double track corridor 

improvement program, are not included in the scope of this project. 

Total capital costs for the segment 5 project are estimated at 

$327,000,000. The FFGA will provide a total of $110,500,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. A total of $52,400,000 has been appropriated to this project through fiscal year 2002. The Committee 

recommends $39,689,213 in fiscal year 2003. 

Largo, Maryland, Metrorail extension project.—The Maryland 

Mass Transit Administration (MTA) and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) are joint lead local agencies planning a proposed 3.1 mile heavy rail extension of the Metrorail blue line. The proposed Largo Metrorail Extension will be 

from the existing Addison Road Station to Largo town center, located just beyond the Capital beltway in Prince George’s County, 

Maryland. The project follows an alignment that has been preserved as a rail transit corridor in the Prince George’s County master plan. The 3.1 mile alignment, containing at-, above- and belowgrade segments, has been modified to be underground or covered 

between Central Avenue and the Capital beltway to address concerns raised during public review of the DEIS. Two new stations 

will be provided at Summerfield and at the Largo town center station. The stations will provide 500 and 2,200 park-and-ride spaces, 

respectively, plus a hundred or more kiss-and-ride spaces and 11 

bus bays each. A number of WMATA and Prince George’s County 

bus routes will connect to the two new stations; shuttle bus service 

is proposed between both stations and the FedEx Field (formerly 

known as the Redskins Stadium). The project will also directly 

serve the USAir Arena, a former major sports complex planned for 

entertainment and retail uses. MTA will manage the project 

through preliminary engineering, with WMATA undertaking final 

design and construction. The project is anticipated to open for service by December 2004, with a total capital cost estimated at 

$433,900,000. Average weekday boardings are estimated to be 

28,500 in 2020 with 16,400 daily new riders. The proposed Largo 

extension was approved by the WMATA Board as an addition to 

the 103-mile Metrorail adopted regional system in February 1997, 

applying WMATA compact funding arrangements, contingent upon 

requisite FTA approvals. The project is included in the national 

capital region’s constrained long range plan. Preliminary engineering was initiated in February 1996. The draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) was completed and approved by FTA in October 1996. The draft final environmental impact statement (FEIS) 

was completed in September 1999. On December 15, 2000, FTA entered into an FFGA with WMATA that commits a total of 

$260,300,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to this project. This 

does not include $5,650,000 in prior year funds that were provided 

to the MTA for planning activities associated with the project, 

which would bring the total amount of new starts funding to 

$265,690,000. To date, Congress has appropriated $72,190,000 to 

this project. For fiscal year 2003, the bill includes $60,000,000. 

Little Rock, Arkansas, river rail project.—The Central Arkansas 

Transit Authority (CATA) is planning the implementation of a vintage streetcar circulator system on existing right-of-way connecting 

the Alltel Arena, the River Market, and the Convention Center in 

157

downtown Little Rock to the communities of North Little Rock and 

Pulaski County. CATA proposes that service be provided by four 

replica streetcars operating on a single track powered by overhead 

catenary. Phase I of the proposed system will include a 2.1 mile 

alignment, purchase of vehicles, and construction of a maintenance 

facility. Ridership projections estimate 1,000 to 1,200 average 

weekday boardings with an additional 1,000 to 1,800 riders on special event days. Phase II of the project includes a proposed 0.4 mile 

extension along existing right-of-way to the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library site. The project is estimated to cost 

$15,100,000 in escalated dollars, with a proposed section 5309 new 

starts share of $8,600,000 (57 percent). Because the proposed new 

starts share is less than $25,000,000, the project is exempt from 

the new starts criteria, and is thus not subject to FTA’s evaluation 

and rating. A feasibility study was completed in 1997. No formal 

major investment study (MIS) was completed due to the limited 

scale of the proposed investment, the use of existing rail and street 

rights-of-way, and the estimated low cost. FTA approval to enter 

the preliminary engineering phase of project development was 

granted in May 1998. FTA approved project entrance into final design in September 1999. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has 

appropriated $7,930,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to this 

project. For fiscal year 2003, $700,000 is provided to complete stage 

I of this project. 

Los Angeles, California, Eastside corridor light rail transit 

project.—The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is proposing to implement a 5.9 mile light rail transit (LRT) 

line in the Eastside Corridor, connecting downtown Los Angeles 

with low-to moderate-income communities in east Los Angeles. The 

proposed system would include 8 stations and will traverse eastward from Union Station along Alameda street through the City of 

Terrace, Belvedere, and East Los Angeles communities of unincorporated Los Angeles County. The project would terminate at Atlantic Boulevard, where a 200 space park-and-ride facility is planned. 

The project is primarily at grade, with a 1.8-mile mid-section underground in tunnel. The project is intended to improve mobility 

for residents and employees in the corridor, and provide improved 

access to employment opportunities throughout the MTA service 

area. By 2020, 15,000 average weekday boardings are forecasted, 

including 7,600 new riders. 

On May 14, 1993, an FFGA was issued to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) for the third 

construction phase, MOS–3. MOS–3 was defined under ISTEA 

(Section 3034) to include three segments: the North Hollywood segment, a 6.3-mile, three-station subway extension of the Hollywood 

branch of MOS–2 to North Hollywood through the Santa Monica 

mountains; the Mid-City segment, a 2.3-mile, two-station western 

extension of the Wilshire Boulevard branch; and an undefined segment of the Eastside project, to the east from the existing red line 

terminus at Union Station. LACMTA later defined this eastern segment as a 3.7-mile, four-station extension under the Los Angeles 

River to First and Leona in East Los Angeles. On December 28, 

1994, the FFGA for MOS–3 was amended to include this definition 

of the eastern segment, bringing the total commitment of Federal 

new starts funds for MOS–3 to $1,416,490,000. In January 1997, 

158

FTA requested that the MTA submit a recovery plan to demonstrate its ability to complete MOS–2 and MOS–3, while maintaining and operating the existing bus system. On January 14, 

1998, the LACMTA Board of Directors voted to suspend and demobilize construction on all rail projects other than MOS–2 and 

MOS–3 North Hollywood extension. The MTA submitted a recovery 

plan to FTA on May 15, 1998, which was approved by FTA on July 

2, 1998. In 1998, the MTA undertook a regional transportation alternatives analysis (RTAA) to analyze and evaluate feasible alternatives for the Eastside and Mid-City corridors. The RTAA addressed system investment priorities, allocation of resources to operate existing transit services at a reliable standard, assessment 

and management of financial risk, countywide bus service expansion, and a process for finalizing corridor investments. On November 9, 1998, the LACMTA Board reviewed the RTAA and directed 

staff to reprogram resources previously allocated to the Eastside 

and Mid-City extensions to the implementation of RTAA recommendations. In June 1999, the MTA initiated a re-evaluation/

major investment study on the Eastside corridor, and began a draft 

environmental impact statement on the corridor in March 2000. In 

June 2000, the MTA board formally selected a light rail transit 

technology in the Eastside corridor as the locally preferred alternative. FTA approved the initiation of preliminary engineering in 

August 2000. The MACMTA plans to begin final design in the fall 

of 2002, and begin construction in 2003. The total capital cost of 

this project is estimated to be $817,900,000, of which MTA will 

seek $490,700,000 (60 percent) in section 5309 new starts funding. 

Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $76,480,000 

for the original Eastside and Mid-City projects. Through fiscal year 

2002, Congress appropriated $21,300,000 for the Eastside project. 

For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $8,200,000. 

Los Angeles, North Hollywood, California, extension project.— Continuing the discussion noted above under the Eastside corridor, 

on June 9, 1997, FTA and LACMTA negotiated a revised FFGA 

covering the North Hollywood segment (phase 1–A) of MOS–3, 

which opened in May 2000. The total capital cost of the North Hollywood project was estimated at $1,310,820,000, of which the revised FFGA commits $681,040,000 in section 5309 new starts 

funds. Through fiscal year 2002, a total of $640,350,000 has been 

appropriated for the North Hollywood segment of MOS–3. The 

Committee recommends $40,485,912 to complete the commitment 

under the revised FFGA for this project. 

Lowell, Massachusetts-Nashua, New Hampshire, commuter rail 

extension project.—The New Hampshire Department of Transportation (NHDOT) is proposing to design and construct a 12-mile extension of an existing commuter rail line from Lowell, Massachusetts to Nashua, New Hampshire. The proposed project would extend existing commuter rail service provided by the Massachusetts 

Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) on an anticipated schedule 

of six round trips per weekday and three roundtrips on Saturday. 

The proposed service extension would provide an alternative to a 

highly congested highway corridor and is also anticipated to provide traffic mitigation during the planned expansion of Route 3 in 

Massachusetts. The proposed project also includes the purchase of 

commuter rail equipment for use by the MBTA, rehabilitation of 

159

existing track and the construction of new trackage (where necessary), and a park-and-ride lot with a boarding platform near 

Everett Turnpike (exit 2) in Nashua. MBTA anticipates 900 weekday boardings at the start of service. In 1999, the Nashua Regional 

Planning Commission (NRPC) completed a major investment study 

that analyzed the passenger rail market, required capital investments, operational issues, and several alternatives to the commuter rail extension option. In June 1999, NRPC and NHDOT selected the extension as the locally preferred alternative. FTA approved NHDOT’s request to initiate preliminary engineering on the 

project in May 2000. NHDOT is currently undergoing the environmental review phase of the proposed project. The total capital cost 

for the commuter rail extension is estimated at $40,700,000 (escalated dollars), with a proposed section 5309 new starts share of 

$18,000,000 (44 percent). Since the proposed new starts share is 

less than $25,000,000, the project is exempt from the new starts 

criteria. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated 

$5,930,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for this effort. For fiscal year 2003, the bill includes $5,000,000 for this project. 

Maryland (MARC) commuter rail improvements project.—The 

Maryland Mass Transit Administration is proposing three projects 

for the Maryland Commuter Rail (MARC) system serving the Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC metropolitan areas. These projects 

are: (1) Mid-day storage facility, (2) Penn-Camden connection, and 

(3) Silver Spring intermodal transit center. The proposed Mid-Day 

storage facility would be used for daytime equipment layover, 

minor repair, daily servicing and inspections of commuter rail 

trains sets within the Amtrak yard at Washington D.C.’s Union 

Station. Platforms that are currently used to store these trains at 

Union Station are no longer available due to the introduction of 

high-speed Amtrak service, and the new facility will avoid the operating cost of sending trains back to Baltimore for mid-day storage. 

MTA will lease the five-acre site owned by Amtrak. The estimated 

capital costs for the project total $26,600,000. The Penn-Camden 

connection is a six-mile connection between the MARC Camden 

line and MARC Penn line/Amtrak Northeast corridor in southwest 

Baltimore. The connection of these two commuter rail lines is designed to achieve many benefits: the opportunity to remove trains 

from the congested Camden line for reverse peak movements; access to the planned MARC maintenance facility to be located along 

the connection; and increased operating flexibility on both commuter rail lines. Estimated capital costs for the project total 

$30,800,000. With the development of the Silver Spring intermodal 

transit center, MTA will relocate a transit center from the Silver 

Spring MARC station to the Silver Spring metrorail station. The 

transit center would allow convenient passenger transfers between 

several modes of travel. The center will also accommodate the proposed Georgetown branch trolley to operate between Silver Spring 

and Bethesda, Maryland. Estimated capital costs for the project 

total $33,300,000. The proposed MARC commuter rail improvements are in varying stages of planning and project development—

the Mid-day storage facility is in final design; a finding of no significant impact was issued in November 1999 for the MARC PennCamden connection and final design is in process; an environmental assessment for the MARC Silver Spring intermodal center 

160

has been completed; and FTA action is pending local decisions regarding joint development opportunities for the site. The total cost 

of the project is estimated at $90,700,000, with $37,800,000 (42 

percent) to be derived from section 5309 new starts funds. Through 

fiscal year 2002, $26,360,000 has been appropriated for these improvements. The Committee recommends $11,500,000 for fiscal 

year 2003. This funding will complete the federal commitment to 

these three projects. 

Memphis, Tennessee, Medical Center rail extension project.—The 

Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA), in cooperation with the 

City of Memphis, is building a 2.5-mile light rail transit extension 

to the Main Street Trolley/Riverfront Loop village rail system. The 

extension would expand the central business district (CBD) rail circulation system to serve the Medical Center area east of the CBD. 

The project would operate on the city streets in mixed traffic and 

would connect with the Main Street trolley, sharing a lane with 

automobile traffic on Madison Avenue between Main Street and 

Cleveland Street. At the eastern terminus, near Cleveland Street, 

a bus transfer point and a small park-and-ride lot would be constructed to accommodate transfers with buses and cars. At the 

western terminus, existing stations on Main Street near Madison 

Avenue would be utilized for transfers to/from the Main Street trolley/riverfront loop system. Six new stations would be located along 

the route. The line will be designed to accommodate light rail vehicles but vintage rail cars would be utilized until a proposed regional LRT line is implemented and a fleet of modern LRT vehicles 

is acquired. The project is proposed as the last segment of the 

downtown rail circulation system as well as the first segment of a 

regional light rail line. The total capital cost of the 2.5-mile project 

is estimated at $74,580,000. On December 12, 2000, FTA issued an 

FFGA committing a total of $59,670,000 in section 5309 new starts 

funds to the Medical Center extension. Through fiscal year 2002, 

a total of $35,310,000 has been appropriated. For fiscal year 2003, 

the Committee recommends $15,610,000. 

Miami Metromover Stage I.—As agreed to in the 1999 conference 

report, the Committee permits FTA to reprogram $5,834,000 in 

new starts funds, originally obligated for Miami-Dade Transit 

(MDT) Metromover Stage I, to the Metrorail Palmetto Extension 

project. 

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, Hiawatha corridor project.—

Metro Transit and the Metropolitan Council (local metropolitan 

planning organization), in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Hennepin County and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), plan to implement a 11.6-

mile, 17 station light rail line linking downtown Minneapolis, the 

Minneapolis-St. Paul international airport, and the Mall of America in Bloomington. The line will operate on the Hiawatha Avenue/

Trunk Highway 55. The LRT is the transit component of a locally 

preferred alternative, which includes reconstruction of TH–55 as a 

four lane, at-grade arterial between Franklin Avenue and 59th 

Street and construction of an interchange between TH–55 and TH–

63 (Crosstown Highway). Current plans call for the north end of 

the LRT to begin in the Minneapolis central business district 

(CBD) and operate on the existing transit mall along 5th Street. 

The LRT is planned to exit the CBD near the Hubert H. Humphrey 

161

Metrodome, following the former Soo Line Railroad to Franklin Avenue, then parallel Hiawatha Avenue. The project will include a 

1.8-mile tunnel to be constructed under the MSP airport runways 

and taxiways with the construction of one station. The line is then 

planned to emerge from the tunnel on the West side of the airport 

with a station located at the HHH Terminal. It then would continue south with three proposed stations in Bloomington, including 

a station near the Mall of America. The project is expected to serve 

24,800 average weekday boardings by the year 2020; 19,300 average weekday boardings are projected in the opening year. The estimated capital cost for the 11.6-mile Hiawatha Avenue LRT, including 17 proposed stations, totals $675,400,000. In January 2001, 

FTA issued an FFGA that commits a total of $334,030,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to the Hiawatha Corridor LRT. Of this, 

$168,350,000 has been appropriated through fiscal year 2002. For 

fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $60,000,000. 

Minneapolis-Rice, Minnesota, Northstar corridor commuter 

rail.—The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) is 

proposing to design and construct an 82-mile commuter rail line 

within the Northstar corridor connecting the Minneapolis-St.Paul 

metropolitan area and Rice, Minnesota. The proposed project also 

includes a 0.3-mile extension of the proposed Hiawatha Corridor 

LRT project from its currently planned terminus in downtown Minneapolis to provide a direct link to the proposed commuter rail 

service. The project would also have a direct link to the 4th Street 

Transit Center and the downtown Minneapolis skyway system. The 

proposed commuter rail line would operate along existing Burlington-Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad track. The commuter 

rail project also includes the purchase of five locomotives, 17 passenger rail cars, and construction of layover and vehicle storage facilities. In May 1998, the Northstar Corridor Development Authority undertook a major investment study and draft environmental 

impact statement to examine the transportation options in the 

Northstar Corridor. The MIS was completed in December 1999 

with the selection of a locally preferred alternative. FTA approved 

MnDOT’s request to initiate preliminary engineering in June 2000 

on the commuter rail and light rail extension. A final EIS is scheduled for completion in mid to late 2002. Following completion of the 

final EIS, FTA’s issuance of a record of decision, and the solidification of the state’s financial commitment to the project, MnDOT is 

planning to request entry into final design in late 2002. Total capital costs for the project are $304,000,000, of which, $23,400,000 is 

for the Hiawatha light rail extension and $270,600,000 for the 

Northstar commuter rail segment. The anticipated federal share 

will be $147,000,000 (50 percent). Through fiscal year 2002, a total 

of $14,850,000 has been appropriated to this project. For fiscal year 

2003, the Committee recommends $7,000,000. 

Nashville, Tennessee, East corridor commuter rail project.—The 

Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) and the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) of Nashville, Tennessee are proposing the 

implementation of a 31.1-mile, 5 station commuter rail line between downtown Nashville and the city of Lebanon in Wilson 

County. The east corridor commuter rail project is proposed to operate on an existing rail line owned by the Nashville and Eastern 

Railroad Authority (N&E), a governmental entity comprised of the 

162

Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), Wilson County, 

Lebanon, Mt. Juliet, and the Metropolitan Government of Nashville 

and Davidson County. Rolling stock and maintenance facilities will 

be leased from the N&E. In 1996, the MTA and RTA initiated a 

study to explore the potential of commuter rail in the Nashville region. From this study, six corridors were considered for further 

evaluation. A 1998 study analyzed the capital costs for the three 

most promising corridors. As the result of these studies and efforts 

of the Nashville area commuter rail task force—which includes the 

Nashville Chamber of Commerce, area business leaders, the MPO, 

MTA, RTA, the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), 

CSX Railroad and the Nashville and Eastern Rail Authority, and 

the Nashville congressional delegation—the east corridor was selected as the first corridor to be implemented in the Nashville area 

commuter rail system. The Nashville MPO included the east corridor commuter rail project in its fiscally constrained long range 

transportation plan in September 1999. FTA approved the project 

into preliminary engineering on November 30, 1999. The RTA completed an environmental assessment and received a finding of no 

significant impact for the project in May 2000. In June 2001, FTA 

approved the project to advance into final design. The MTA is currently considering moving to a minimum operating segment that 

would be exclusively within Davidson County. The project is estimated to cost $33,200,000 in escalated dollars, with a proposed section 5309 new starts share of $22,900,000 (69 percent). Because the 

proposed new starts share is less than $25,000,000, the project is 

exempt from the new starts criteria, and is thus not subject to 

FTA’s evaluation and rating. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $11,870,000 for the project. For fiscal year 2003, 

the Committee recommends $6,000,000 for final design and construction. Due to the volume of projects seeking an FFGA, the 

Committee cannot fully support those projects that are seeking a 

high federal share from the new starts account. The Committee 

strongly encourages Nashville to revisit the amount of local funding they plan to contribute to this project, and find ways to increase the local share. 

Newark-Elizabeth, New Jersey, rail link project.—The New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is developing a one mile, five 

station minimum operable segment (MOS) of an 8.8-mile, 16–station light rail transit (LRT) system which will eventually link Newark and Elizabeth, New Jersey. The MOS will function as an extension of the existing 4.3-mile Newark City subway light rail line, 

running from Broad Street Station in Newark to Newark Penn Station. NJ Transit estimates that the one mile MOS will cost 

$207,700,000 (escalated dollars), including associated stations, and 

will serve 13,300 average weekday boardings in 2015. NJ Transit 

estimates that the entire 8.8-mile project will have a capital cost 

of $694,000,000 (1995 dollars) and will carry 24,900 average weekday boardings per day in 2015. The Newark-Elizabeth rail link is 

being advanced in three stages: the MOS, a one mile connection between the Broad Street station and Newark Penn Station; the second segment, a one mile line from Newark Penn station to Camp 

Street in downtown Newark; and the third segment, a seven mile 

LRT line from downtown Newark to Elizabeth, including a station 

serving Newark International Airport. The draft environmental imVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
163

pact statement (DEIS) covering all three stages of the full build alternative was completed in January 1997. The final environmental 

impact statement (FEIS), which addressed only the MOS, was completed in October 1998. The FTA signed the record of decision 

(ROD) for the MOS in November 1998. In August 2000, FTA and 

New Jersey Transit executed an FFGA for MOS–1, committing 

$141,950,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to construct the 

project. Environmental work on the other segments of the rail line 

awaits completion of ongoing planning efforts. Through fiscal year 

2002, Congress has appropriated $59,390,000 in section 5309 new 

starts funds for the Newark rail link MOS–1 project, including 

funds from the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $60,000,000. 

New Jersey Hudson Bergen light rail transit project (MOS–1).—

The New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is constructing 

a 9.6-mile, 16-station light rail project along the Hudson River waterfront in Hudson County, from the Hoboken terminal to 34th 

Street Bayonne and Westside Avenue in Jersey City. The line is intended as the initial minimum operating segment (MOS–1) of an 

eventual 21-mile, 30-station light rail line extending from the Vince 

Lombardi park-and-ride lot in Bergen County to Bayonne, passing 

through Port Imperial in Weehauken, Hoboken, and Jersey City. 

The core of the system will serve the high density commercial and 

residential centers in Jersey City and Hoboken and connect to ferries, PATH, and NJ Transit commuter rail lines. MOS–1 is expected to cost $992,140,000 (escalated dollars) and to carry 31,300 

riders per day. The full 21-mile system is expected to cost 

$2,000,000,000 (escalated dollars) and to carry 94,500 riders per 

day. A portion of the MOS–1 line, between 34th Street and Exchange Place, opened in April 2000, and the New Jersey Transit 

began revenue service from Exchange Place north to the PavoniaNewport Station in November 2000. Full service to Hoboken terminal will begin in the fall, 2002. 

In February 1993, NJ Transit initially selected, as its locally preferred alternative, a 26-station at-grade LRT line from the Vince 

Lombardi park-and-ride lot through Hoboken and Jersey City to 

Route 440 in Southwest Jersey City. A final environmental impact 

statement (FEIS) for the full project was completed in the summer 

of 1996. In October 1996, the FTA issued a record of decision 

(ROD) for the full project. In that same month, FTA signed a FFGA 

committing $604,090,000 of section 5309 new start funds to support the 9.6-mile MOS–1. In January 1997, the governor of New 

Jersey, in conjunction with the mayor and the City Council of Hoboken, agreed to shift the alignment in Hoboken to the west side 

of the city. An environmental assessment (EA) was completed on 

the impacts resulting from this proposed change and submitted to 

the FTA in August 1998. Public review of the EA has been completed. The shift from the east side alignment to the west side 

alignment in Hoboken places the station south and adjacent to the 

Hoboken terminal and raises the number of stations for the full 

project from 6 to 30 stations. The Hudson-Bergen LRT project is 

one of eight elements eligible for funding as part of the New Jersey 

Urban Core project. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $584,890,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to the HudVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00163 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
164

son-Bergen MOS–1. For fiscal year 2003, the bill provides $19,200,000 to complete the federal commitment to this project. 

New Jersey, Hudson-Bergen (MOS–2).—The second minimum operable segment (MOS) of the New Jersey Transit Hudson-Bergen 

light rail transit system is a 5.1-mile, seven station segment running north from Hoboken terminal to the Tonnelle Avenue parkand-ride lot in North Bergen, and to south 22nd Street in Bayonne. 

The Hudson-Bergen MOS–2 line will serve an area with one of the 

highest residential densities in the region, and the downtown Jersey City area contains the largest concentration of office development in Hudson County. By providing ferry and commuter rail 

service, the line will also serve the Manhattan central business district. MOS–2 is scheduled for completion in 2005 and is anticipated 

to carry 39,400 average weekday boardings in 2010. Total costs for 

MOS–2 are estimated at $1,215,400,000. FTA issued an FFGA for 

this project on October 31, 2000, commiting a total of $500,000,000 

in section 5309 new starts funds. The MOS–2 project did not require funding from the section 5309 new starts program until fiscal 

year 2003; however, the issuance of an FFGA in 2000 provided 

New Jersey Transit with the authority to borrow funds to begin 

construction while the MOS–1 is being completed, under the same 

turnkey contract. This permits the entire Hudson-Bergen project to 

be constructed at a lower cost by avoiding significant costs associated with stopping and then restarting a major construction 

project. No prior year funding has been appropriated for MOS–2. 

The Committee recommends $50,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. 

New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal carline project.—The New Orleans Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is proposing to return streetcar service on Canal Street. The project is 5.5 miles in the downtown area, running along the median of Canal Street. The Canal 

Streetcar spine will extend from the Canal ferry at the Mississippi 

River in the central business district, through the Mid-City neighborhood to Carrolton Avenue, where one branch will continue on 

Canal street to the cemeteries and another will follow Carrolton 

Avenue to City Park/Beauregard Circle. The project also includes 

37 stations: 26 stations on Canal Street, five stations on the City 

Park spur, and six stations on the Riverfront line. In addition, the 

project includes the assembly of 24 streetcars, real estate acquisition, utility relocation, power distribution, signals, communication 

systems, upgrades to power stations, track alignments on the 

Riverfront Line, construction of a paint/vehicle storage facility, and 

a new service/inspection/storage facility on the grounds of the existing Randolph Street facility on Canal Street. RTA completed a 

major investment study for this project in March 1995, fulfilling 

the requirement for an alternative analysis. FTA approved entry 

into preliminary engineering in September 1995, and RTA initiated 

final design in September 1997. Final design is essentially complete, contracts for vehicle assembly have been awarded, and construction contracts were awarded in mid-2001. Sufficient local 

funds are now committed to the project due to an extension of the 

RTA sales tax. The total capital cost of this project is estimated at 

$161,300,000, of which RTA is expected to seek $129,050,000 in 

section 5309 new starts funding (80 percent). To date, Congress has 

appropriated $70,030,000 for this project). For fiscal year 2003, the 

Committee recommends $22,000,000. While the Committee recogVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00164 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
165

nizes that this project has a pending FFGA, the federal share for 

this project is at 80 percent, which is too high. Numerous discussions have occurred about ways to reduce the federal share from 

80 percent but to no avail. Yet, New Orleans RTA is also requesting substantial bus and access to jobs funding from the Committee, 

which require a local match (20 percent and 50 percent respectively). Since local funds are available for bus and access to jobs 

projects, the Committee is dismayed that the RTA could not increase its local share for this streetcar project. As such, the Committee cannot fully support this project at the level requested in 

the budget. 

New Orleans, Louisiana, Desire corridor streetcar project.—The 

Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is restoring a 2.9-mile traditional 

streetcar line in downtown New Orleans, as part of the locally preferred alternative for the Desire Corridor. The Desire Corridor 

streetcar project will operate along North Rampart Street and St. 

Claude Avenue between Canal Street and Poland Avenue. The proposed streetcar alignment will loop at Canal Street and use exclusive right-of-way in the median of city streets, as much as possible. 

The single-track loop will operate in the median of North Rampart 

and Canal Streets and in the traffic lanes of Basin and Toulouse 

Streets. The double track section will operate in the left traffic 

lanes of North Rampart Street, McShane Place, and St. Claude Avenue between Elysian Fields and Poland Avenues. The project will 

serve the communities of Iberville, Treme, Faubourg, Marigny, St. 

Roch, and Bywater. Six major bus transfer points with construction 

of center platforms, canopies, passenger benches, and landscaping 

will be provided: 16 intermediate stops with less elaborate center 

platforms are also planned. The project also includes the purchase 

of 13 new vehicles. RTA completed a major investment study for 

the Desire Corridor in September 1999. FTA approved initiation of 

preliminary engineering in August 2000. The capital cost estimate 

of the streetcar project is $93,500,000, of which RTA will be seeking an FFGA for $56,100,000 (60 percent). To date, $7,160,000 has 

been appropriated to the project. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $1,200,000. 

New York Long Island Rail Road, New York, East Side access 

project.—The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is the 

lead agency for the proposed Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) East 

Side access project. The project would provide increased capacity 

for the commuter rail lines of the Long Island Rail Road and direct 

access between suburban Long Island and Queens and a new passenger terminal in Grand Central Terminal (GCT) in east Midtown 

Manhattan, in addition to the current connection to Penn Station 

in Manhattan. The East Side Access (ESA) connection and increased LIRR capacity would be achieved by constructing a 4,600-

foot tunnel from the LIRR Main Line in Sunnyside, Queens to the 

existing tunnel under the East River at 63rd Street. LIRR trains 

would use the lower level of this bi-level structure. A second 5,000-

foot tunnel would carry LIRR trains from the 63rd Street Tunnel 

under Park Avenue and into a new LIRR terminal in the lower 

level of GCT. ESA will provide the LIRR with additional tunnel capacity across the East River. Increased capacity and headways 

would be introduced at most LIRR stations. For example, an additional 24 peak hour trains would operate through the existing 63rd 

166

Street Tunnel to GCT. Ten new tracks and five platforms will be 

constructed for LIRR trains at GCT. In addition, a new LIRR station would be constructed at Sunnyside Yard to provide access between Long Island City and Penn Station in Manhattan. The East 

River tunnels in Manhattan are at capacity. ESA is anticipated to 

improve LIRR tunnel capacity constraints and enable the growth of 

the overall system. Total capital costs are approximately 

$4,350,000,000 (escalated dollars), including $3,880,000,000 for 

project management, design, construction and right-of-way, and 

$790,000,000 for rolling stock. MTA is expected to seek 

$2,172,000,000 in section 5309 new starts funding for this project 

(50 percent). In fiscal year 2020, MTA estimates that this project 

would serve approximately 167,000 average weekday boardings at 

Grand Central Terminal, including 15,400 daily new riders. MTA 

estimates an additional 161,000 daily LIRR boardings serving New 

York City’s Penn Station. 

A major investment study (MIS) on the Long Island Rail Road 

East Side access was completed in April 1998. In June 1998, the 

New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), the metropolitan planning organization, passed a resolution endorsing the 

recommended extension of the LIRR into Grand Central station. In 

September 1998, FTA approved preliminary engineering and preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project. 

A DEIS for the LIRR ESA was completed in May 2000. MTA completed the final EIS in March 2001. A record of decision was issued 

in May 2001. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated 

$68,250,000 in Section 5309 New Start funds for this project. For 

fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $15,000,000 for preliminary engineering, final design and construction. 

New York, Second Avenue Subway.—The New York Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority/New York City Transit (NY MTA/NYCT) 

is the lead agency for the proposed Second Avenue Subway 

projects. The project would alleviate severe overcrowding conditions 

that currently occur on the East Side of Manhattan’s only full 

north-south rapid transit line (Lexington Avenue, number 4, 5, and 

6 lines). In addition, the project would reduce the overly long travel 

times and improve transit accessibility to the east side of Manhattan. The Second Avenue Subway would be constructed as an eightmile subway extending from 125th Street (Harlem) to the Financial 

District in lower Manhattan. Two services are proposed, one on 

Manhattan’s East Side from 125th Street to lower Manhattan via 

Second Avenue, and the other from 125th Street to 63rd Street via 

Second Avenue and then continuing south and to Brooklyn via the 

existing Broadway line. On the Second Avenue alignment, the line 

would enter lower Manhattan via either the existing Nassau Street 

subway or via Water Street, using existing tunnels that were constructed during the 1970s. The new eight-mile tunnel would include approximately 19.5 miles of trackage (double track and 

bellmouths) from 125th Street to lower Manhattan and 16 new stations. Total capital costs for the project are estimated at $16.8 billion (escalated dollars), including $16.18 billion for project management, design, construction, and right-of-way and $624,900,000 for 

rolling stock. Of this total, the federal share is estimated at $8.38 

billion (50 percent). In December 2001, FTA approved entry into 

preliminary engineering for this project. A supplemental draft EIS 

167

is anticipated for completion in the fall of 2002, with a final anticipated in the summer or fall of 2003. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $1,980,000 for this project. The Committee 

recommends $4,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. 

Northern Indiana Commuter Rail, South Shore Service.—The 

Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District is continuing 

a project of capital reinvestment. The capital reinvestment plan 

will provide greater operational reliability and will increase track 

capcity. The plan includes providing full Centralized Traffic Control 

(CTC) coverage of the line and installing the necessary signal and 

communication devices to support this type of operation. The CTC 

equipment will be state-of-the-art technology, utilizing microprocessor-based systems to support the signal network. The signal 

network will provide full reverse running capability on all tracks, 

including two-track territories. For fiscal year 2003 the Committee 

recommends $3,000,000 to continue to this plan. 

Oceanside-Escondido, California, light rail extension project.— The North County Transit District (NCTD) is planning to convert 

an existing 22-mile freight rail corridor into a diesel multiple unit 

(DMU) transit system running east from the coastal city of Oceanside, through the cities of Vista, San Marcos, and unincorporated 

portions of San Diego County, to the city of Escondido. The alignment also includes 1.7 miles of new right-of-way to serve the campus of California State University San Marcos (CSUSM). The proposed project is located along the State Route 78 corridor, which 

connects Interstate Highways 5 and 15, the principal east-west corridor in northern San Diego County. The proposed project also includes the construction of fifteen stations; four of these stations 

would be located at existing transit centers. Average daily weekday 

boardings in 2015 are estimated at 15,100, with 8,600 daily new 

riders. An environmental impact report (EIR) for the Oceanside-Escondido rail project and an EIR for the CSUSM alignment were 

published and certified in 1990 and 1991 respectively. A major investment study was not required based on concurrence from FTA, 

FHWA, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), 

Caltrans, the city of San Marcos, and NCTD. Advanced planning 

for the Oceanside-Escondido rail project, which resulted in 30 percent design, was completed in December 1995. The environmental 

assessment/subsequent environmental impact report (EA/SEIR) 

was completed in early 1997. The North San Diego County Transit 

Development Board certified the SEIR in March 1997. FTA issued 

a finding of no significant impact in October 1997. FTA approved 

the NCTD’s request to enter into final design in February 2000. 

The total capital cost for this project is estimated at $332,300,000; 

of which NCTD is expected to seek $152,100,000 in FTA new starts 

funds. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated 

$24,280,000 to this project. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee 

recommends $15,000,000 for final design and construction. 

Orange County, Centerline LRT project.—The Orange County 

Transportation Authority (OCTA) is undertaking preliminary engineering on an 18.7-mile rail corridor in central Orange County between Santa Ana and Irvine. The proposed project will connect 

major activity centers within the corridor, including downtown 

Santa Ana, John Wayne Airport, El Toro Marine Base (which is 

being converted to a civilian government center), and several hosVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
168

pitals and regional shopping, employment, cultural and entertainment centers. Additionally, the proposed project would serve two 

major intermodal centers in Santa Ana and Irvine that will provide 

connections to Metrolink commuter trains, local buses, and Amtrak. OCTA completed a major investment study for the corridor in 

June 1997, which led to the selection of a rail/bus project consisting 

of a 28-mile rail corridor and a 49 percent increase in bus service. 

In February 2002, FTA approved entry into the preliminary engineering. In response to input from citizens and local elected officials, OCTA has revised the project. The proposed project alignment has shortened from 30 miles to 18.7 miles and will be an elevated LRT system, including 22 stations. OCTA estimates that in 

2025, the project will have 42,400 average weekday boardings, with 

approximately 37,000 daily new riders. Project costs are estimated 

at $1,889,000,000 (escalated dollars), with $944,500,000 to be derived from the section 5309 new starts program. Through fiscal 

year 2002, Congress has appropriated $7,450,000 for this project. 

The Committee recommends $1,800,000 in fiscal year 2003. 

Phoenix, Arizona, Central Phoenix/east valley corridor project.— The Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) is proposed 

to implement a 25-mile at-grade light rail system to connect the 

cities of Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa. As a first step, the RPTA is 

undertaking preliminary engineering on a 20.3-mile segment from 

the Christ-Town Mall area, through downtown Phoenix and downtown Tempe, to Mesa. The proposed project would have 28 stations 

and serve major activity centers including downtown Phoenix, the 

Sky Harbor airport, Papago Park Center, and downtown Tempe. 

The RPTA completed the Central Phoenix/East Valley (CP/EV) 

major investment study (MIS) in the spring of 1998. In September 

1998, FTA granted RPTA permission to enter the preliminary engineering/environmental impact statement (PE/EIS) phase on 13 

miles of the corridor. FTA has subsequently approved preliminary 

engineering on 20.3 miles of the proposed system. The RPTA plans 

to complete NEPA process and receive a record of decision in the 

fall of 2002, undertake final design in 2003, and begin construction 

in 2004. The proposed 20.3-mile LRT system is estimated to cost 

approximately $1,181,000,000 (escalated), of which the RPTA intends to seek $590,700,000 in new starts funding (50 percent). 

Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $33,670,000 

for the project. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends 

$18,000,000 for preliminary engineering, final design and construction. 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, North Shore connector light rail transit 

project.—The Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAAC), proposes 

to construct a 1.6-mile light rail transit system extension connecting the Golden Triangle and the North Shore wholly within 

downtown Pittsburgh. The project would extend the existing LRT 

service from the Gateway center LRT station in Golden Triangle to 

the vicinity of the West End Bridge on the North Shore via a tunnel below the Allegheny River. On the North Shore, the project 

would be a mix of at-grade and elevated alignment. The project 

would also include a Convention Center connection, linking the existing Steel Plaza LRT station and the Convention Center. The 

North Shore connector LRT project would include the construction 

of four new LRT stations and modifications of the Gateway Center 

169

and Steel Plaza stations, and the acquisition of 10 new light rail 

vehicles. The alternatives analysis was completed in early 1999 

and the ‘‘gateway LRT alternative’’ was selected as the locally preferred alternative for the North Shore connector LRT project on 

August 16, 2000 by PAAC. FTA approval to initiate preliminary engineering was granted in January 2001. PAAC is currently developing the final EIS and anticipates FTA issuance of a record of decision in 2002. Project capital costs are estimated at $389,900,000 

(escalated); the section 5309 new starts share is estimated at 

$272,900,000 (70 percent). Revenue service start-up is planned in 

2007. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated 

$23,670,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for this effort. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has provided $7,025,000 for preliminary engineering, final design and construction. Due to the volume 

of projects seeking an FFGA, the Committee cannot fully support 

those projects that are seeking a high federal share from the new 

starts account. The Committee strongly encourages Pittsburgh to 

revisit the amount of local funding they plan to contribute to the 

North Shore Connector LRT project, and find ways to increase the 

local share. 

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, stage II light rail transit reconstruction 

project.—The Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAAC) has undertaken reconstruction of the 25-mile Pittsburgh rail system to 

modern light rail standards. The stage I light rail transit (LRT) 

project resulted in the reconstruction of a 13-mile system to light 

rail standards during the 1980s. The stage II LRT project proposes 

reconstruction and double-tracking of the remaining 12 miles of the 

system consisting of the Overbrook, Library, and Drake trolley 

lines. The stage II LRT project would reconstruct these three lines 

to modern LRT standards, double track the single track segments, 

reopen the closed Overbrook and Drake Lines, add approximately 

2,400 spaces in park and ride lots, and purchase 28 new light rail 

vehicles. During 1999, PAAC reconfigured its rail improvement 

program to prioritize program needs against available funding. The 

modified new starts project, the stage II LRT priority program, 

would reconstruct the Overbrook Line and a portion of the Library 

Line, and add the 2,400 park and ride spaces and 28 vehicles. The 

remainder of the stage II LRT program would be built as funds become available. The estimated cost of the priority program is 

$386,400,000. In January 2001, FTA issued an FFGA for this 

project that would commit a total of $100,200,000 in section 5309 

new starts funding. Through fiscal year 2002, a total of 

$41,530,000 has been appropriated. The bill includes $26,250,000 

for fiscal year 2003. 

Portland, Oregon, Interstate MAX light rail transit extension 

project.—The Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of 

Oregon (Tri-Met) is planning a 5.8-mile, 10-station extension of its 

light rail transit (LRT) system known locally as the Metropolitan 

Area Express. The proposed Interstate Metropolitan Area Express 

(MAX) line will extend existing LRT service northward from the 

Rose Quarter Arena and the Oregon Convention Center, to North 

Portland neighborhoods, medical facilities, the Portland International Raceway, and the Metropolitan Exposition Center. Riders 

will be able to transfer between the Interstate MAX extension and 

the existing 33-mile East/West MAX line at Rose Quarter station. 

170

This line will complement regional land use plans by connecting established residential, commercial, entertainment, and other major 

activity centers, and providing a key transportation link in the region’s welfare to work programs. The LRT extension is estimated to cost $350,000,000 (escalated dollars) and carry 18,100 average 

weekday boardings (8,400 new riders) by 2020. On September 20, 

2000, FTA and Tri-Met entered into an FFGA that commits a total 

of $257,500,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to the Interstate 

MAX project. This does not include funding appropriated in prior 

years that was allocated to Portland Metro for the 12-mile SouthNorth light rail line originally proposed for this corridor. Through 

fiscal year 2002, $76,750,000 has been appropriated for the Interstate MAX extension. The Committee recommends $70,000,000 in 

fiscal year 2003. 

Puget Sound, Washington, RTA Sounder commuter rail 

projects.—The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority 

(Sound Transit) is proposing to implement two commuter rail 

projects: Everett to Seattle and Lakewood to Tacoma. 

For the Everett to Seattle commuter rail project, the Central 

Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is proposing to implement 

peak-hour commuter rail service in the 35-mile corridor linking 

Everett to Seattle, Washington. This service will be part of the 

overall 82-mile Sounder commuter rail corridor serving 14 stations 

from Lakewood, through the downtowns of Tacoma and Seattle, 

and terminating in Everett, Washington. Service from Tacoma to 

Seattle began in September 2000. The Everett-Seattle commuter 

rail segment would include three multimodal stations that provide 

connections to a variety of transportation services, including local 

and express bus service, the Washington State ferry system (connecting cities on the east and west sides of Puget Sound), the proposed Link light rail system, and Amtrak. Twelve trains per day 

will serve up to six stations. The draft environmental impact statement for this project was issued in June 1999 and a final EIS was 

published in November 1999. The record of decision was signed in 

February 2000. Sound Transit will be seeking FTA authorization to 

enter into final design in 2002. Sound Transit estimates total 

project costs for the Everett-Seattle segment of the Sounder system 

at $104 million in escalated dollars. The federal new starts share 

is $24.9 million (24%). Because the proposed new starts share is 

less than $25,000,000, the project is exempt from the new starts 

criteria, and is thus not subject to FTA’s evaluations and ratings. 

For the Lakewood to Tacoma commuter rail project, Central 

Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority is proposing to implement 

peak-hour commuter rail service for an eight-mile segment linking 

Tacoma and Lakewood, Washington. This service will be part of the 

overall 82-mile Sounder commuter rail corridor serving 14 stations 

from Lakewood, through the downtowns of Tacoma and Seattle, 

and terminating in Everett, Washington. Sound Transit proposes to 

run eighteen trains per day (including reverse commute service) to 

the cities along the alignment, including Lakewood, South Tacoma, 

and Tacoma, connecting to stations in Puyallup, Sumner, Auburn, 

Kent, Tukwila, and Seattle. Two trains will run from Lakewood to 

Everett. Service from Tacoma to Seattle began in September 2000. 

The Lakewood to Tacoma commuter rail service is scheduled to 

begin in operations in 2004. The final EIS was published in May 

171

2000 and a record of decision was signed in June 2000. Sound 

Transit will be seeking final design authorization for this project in 

2002. The total budget for this segment, including vehicle purchase, track and signal improvements, and station construction is 

$86,000,000 in escalated dollars. Sound Transit is proposing a section 5309 new starts share of $24,900,000 (29 percent). Because the 

proposed new starts share is less than $25,000,000, the project is 

exempt from the new starts criteria, and is thus not subject to 

FTA’s evaluations and ratings. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $79,320,000 

to the 82-mile Sounder commuter rail system. Of this total, 

$10,226,431 was made available to the Lakewood to Tacoma commuter rail project and $10,877,131 was made available to the Everett to Seattle commuter rail project. For fiscal year 2003, the bill 

includes $5,000,000 for final design and construction activities. 

Raleigh, North Carolina, Triangle transit project, phase I.—The 

phase I regional rail project is the first segment of a three-phased 

regional transit plan for linking the three counties—Wake, Durham, and Orange—in the Triangle Region of North Carolina. In 

phase I, the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) intends to initiate 

regional rail service from Durham to downtown Raleigh and from 

downtown Raleigh to North Raleigh. TTA proposes to use diesel 

multiple unit (DMU) rail vehicles to serve the 16 phase I stations. 

TTA has proposed that the phase I regional rail project will use the 

existing North Carolina railroad and CSX rail corridors to connect 

Duke University, downtown Durham, Research Triangle Park, 

RDU Airport, Morrisville, Cary, North Carolina State University, 

downtown Raleigh, and North Raleigh. The proposed project is estimated to serve 31,700 average weekday boardings by the year 

2025. The most recent capital cost estimate for Phase I is 

$754,800,000 (escalated dollars). The cost estimate includes final 

design, acquisition of right-of-way (ROW) and rail vehicles, station 

construction, park and ride lots, and construction of storage and 

maintenance facilities. The ROW proposed to be used by TTA for 

the project is shared among a number of operating railroads, thus 

TTA is considering a number of track realignments to accommodate 

inter-city and high-speed rail improvements. In 1995, TTA completed the Triangle Fixed Guideway Study. The Authority’s Board 

of Trustees has adopted the study’s recommendations to put into 

place a regional rail system, and resolutions of support have been 

received from all major units of local government, chambers of commerce, universities, and major employees in the Triangle area. The 

Durham-Chapel Hill, Carrboro MPO and the Capital Area MPO 

have each adopted the locally preferred alternative into their fiscally constrained long-range plans and the phase I regional rail 

project is included in their respective 1998–2004 TIPs and North 

Carolina STIP. In January 1998, TTA initiated preliminary engineering and the preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). The DEIS was released in May 2001. Selection of the 

locally preferred alternative occurred in early 2002. TTA anticipates completion of the final EIS in the summer of 2002 and a 

record of decision in the fall/winter 2002. TTA rail alignment issues 

are currently being worked out with a number of participating 

agencies, including the North Carolina Railroad (NCRR), CSX Railroad, NCDOT Rail, and the Federal Railroad Administration. TTA 

172

is expected to request an FFGA for $377,300,000, or 50 percent, of 

the costs of this project. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $55,550,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for this 

project. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends 

$5,000,000 for preliminary engineering, final design and construction. 

Salt Lake City, Utah, CBD to University LRT.—The Utah Transit 

Authority (UTA) has implemented a 2.5-mile, four-station light rail 

line in eastern Salt Lake City, from the downtown area to Rice-Eccles Stadium on the University of Utah campus. The line connects 

with the existing North/South line at Main Street and travels east 

along 400 South and 500 South to the stadium. Light rail vehicles 

operate on city streets and property owned by Salt Lake City, the 

Utah Department of Transportation, and the University. The CBD 

to University line was scaled back from the originally proposed 

10.9-mile West/East line from the airport to the university. FTA 

issued an FFGA for the CBD to University LRT project on August 

17, 2000, committing a total of $84,600,000 in section 5309 new 

starts funds. This does not include $4,960,000 in fiscal year 2000 

and prior year funding, which brings the total amount of new 

starts funding for this project to $89,560,000. To date, $20,800,000 

has been appropriated. The bill provides $68,760,000 in fiscal year 

2003, completing the federal commitment to this project. 

Salt Lake City, Utah, Medical Center extension.—The Utah Transit Authority has proposed the Medical Center extension project, a 

1.5-mile light rail transit (LRT) system extending from the University Line station at Rice-Eccles Stadium to the University of Utah 

Health Science Complex (Medical Center). The proposed Medical 

Center LRT line includes three stations: Huntsman Center, 

Wasatch Drive, and Medical Center. The Medical Center LRT will 

connect to the University Line LRT and the existing North/South 

LRT corridor. Revenue operations are scheduled to begin in 2004. 

FTA and UTA signed a full funding grant agreement in August 

2000 for the Central Business District to University LRT project. 

The University LRT project opened for service on December 15, 

2001. In August 2001, FTA approved the initiation of final design 

for the Medical Center Extension. The total capital costs for this 

project are anticipated to be $89,400,000, of which $53,600,000 is 

from the section 5309 new starts funds. On May 17, 2002, FTA executed an FFGA for this project. To date, Congress has appropriated 

$2,970,000 for this project. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $20,000,000. 

Salt Lake City, Utah, North South light rail transit extension 

project.—The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) has completed construction of a 15-mile LRT line from downtown Salt Lake City to 

the southern suburbs. The line opened for regular weekday service 

on December 6, 1999. The system operates on city streets downtown (2 miles) then follows a lightly used railroad alignment owned 

by UTA to the suburban community of Sandy (13 miles). The 

project is one component of the Interstate 15 corridor improvement 

initiative, which includes reconstruction of a parallel segment of I–

15. Though original ridership projections for the South LRT were 

estimated at 14,000 daily passengers in 2000 and 23,000 passengers in 2010, current ridership has already exceeded 19,000 

weekday passengers. Total cost for this project was $312,490,000, 

173

of which the FFGA committed $237,390,000 in new starts funding, 

not including $6,600,000 in prior year funds that were provided before the FFGA was issued. To date, a total of $243,280,000 has 

been appropriated to the project. For fiscal year 2003, the bill includes $718,006 to fulfill the terms of the FFGA for this project. 

San Diego, California, Mission Valley East light rail transit 

project.—The Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) is 

constructing a 5.9-mile Mission Valley East Light Rail Transit 

(LRT) extension of its Blue Line. The project would extend the existing system from its current termini east of Interstate 15 to the 

City of La Mesa, where it would connect to the existing Orange 

Line near Baltimore Drive. The line would serve four new stations 

at Grantville, San Diego State University (SDSU), Alvarado Medical Center and 70th Street, as well as two existing stations at Mission San Diego and Grossmont Center. The proposed project would 

include elevated, at-grade, and tunnel portions and provide two 

park-and-ride lots and a new access road between Waring Road 

and the Grantville Station. The project is expected to serve approximately 10,800 average weekday boardings in the corridor by 

2015. The major investment study/draft environmental impact 

statement (DEIS) was completed in May 1997. The locally preferred alternative was selected by the Metropolitan Transit Development Board in October 1997 with concurrence from the San 

Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG, the local metropolitan planning organization). FTA approval to enter the preliminary 

engineering (PE) phase of project development was granted in 

March 1998. Preliminary engineering was completed in July 1998. 

This abbreviated schedule for PE was possible due to the extensive 

public involvement and detailed analyses undertaken during the 

planning stages, streamlining much of the work that would traditionally be undertaken in the PE phase. The final environmental 

impact statement (FEIS) was completed and the record of decision 

(ROD) was issued in August 1998. FTA approval to enter final design was granted in October 1998. The total project capital cost is 

$431,000,000 (escalated dollars). On June 22, 2000, FTA issued an 

FFGA committing a total of $329,960,000 in section 5309 new 

starts funding for the project. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress 

has appropriated $112,720,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to 

this project. The Committee recommends $65,000,000 for fiscal 

year 2003. 

San Francisco, California, BART extension to the airport 

project.—The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and San Mateo 

County Transit District (SamTrans) are constructing an 8.7-mile, 

4-station, BART extension which proceeds southeast from the 

Colma BART Station through the cities of Colma, South San Francisco and San Bruno, and then continues south along the Caltrain 

right-of-way to the city of Millbrae. Approximately, 1.5 miles north 

of the Millbrae Avenue intermodal terminal, an east-west aerial 

‘‘wye’’ (Y) stub will service the San Francisco International Airport 

(SFIA). Originally, this project was estimated to cost 

$1,054,000,000; however, total capital costs have risen to 

$1,510,200,000 (escalated dollars) due to higher than estimated 

construction costs. FTA’s commitment of $750,000,000 to the 

project remains unchanged. Ridership is projected to be 73,600 

trips per day by 2010, including approximately 17,800 daily trips 

174

by air travelers and airport employees. An alternatives analysis/

draft environmental impact statement (DEIS)/draft environmental 

impact report (DEIR) was completed in 1992, resulting in a locally 

preferred alternative. New alignments were later evaluated and, in 

April 1995, BART and SamTrans revised the preferred alternative. 

Due to MTC and Congressional direction to evaluate lower cost options, an aerial design option into the airport was evaluated in a 

focused re-circulated DEIR/supplemental #2 DEIS. The final EIS 

was completed in June 1996 and a record of decision (ROD) was 

issued in August 1996. On June 30, 1997, FTA entered into an 

FFGA for the BART/SFO Extension for $750,000,000 in Federal 

section 5309 new start funds. Through fiscal year 2002, 

$371,370,000 has been appropriated to the BART–SFO Extension. 

For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $100,000,000. 

San Francisco, Third Street Light Rail, phase II.—The San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) has proposed implementing a 7.1-

mile light rail line that will link the southeast section of San Francisco to downtown San Francisco and Chinatown. Phase I will run 

5.4 miles from an existing Caltrain Bayshore Station at the San 

Francisco County line to the south and connecting to the existing 

LRT system in downtown San Francisco via Third Street. This 5.4-

mile segment is estimated to cost $557,900,000 and will be entirely 

funded through local sources. This phase will be open in 2005. The 

second phase, known as the new central subway, would extend the 

light rail line 1.7 miles into a subway terminating in Chinatown. 

According to FTA, the central subway phase is estimated to cost 

$763,900,000, with a federal share of $432,000,000 (or 57 percent). 

In 1996, FTA authorized preliminary engineering and preparation of a draft environmental impact statement on the third street 

corridor. In November 1997, MUNI began preliminary engineering 

for phase 1 of the light rail alignment as well as the Metro East 

maintenance facility. In June 1998, the San Francisco Public 

Transportation Commission, which governs Muni, designated a 

two-phase light rail project as the locally preferred alternative. A 

record of decision was issued in April 1999. FTA approved the 

phase I’s entrance into final design in April 2000 and it is currently 

under construction. FTA approved phase II’s entrance into preliminary engineering in July 2002. No federal funding has been provided to this project yet. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends $1,750,000 for phase II. 

San Jose, California, Silicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor.—

The Silicon Valley rapid transit corridor is a 16.3-mile, seven station project that would extend BART south through the cities of 

Fremont, Milipitas, San Jose, and would terminate at a Caltrain 

commuter rail station in Santa Clara. The majority of the alignment would be at or above grade, although a portion would be underground (subway) in San Jose. This project will connect to a variety of rail systems in the region, including the Altamount Commuter Express service, the Caltrain commuter rail service, the 

Capitol Corridor intercity rail service, and Amtrak; Valley Transportation Authority buses; and to the peoplemover at the San Jose 

airport. The project is estimated to cost $3.7 billion, with a federal 

share of $834,000,000 (22 percent). The project is estimated to cost 

$3.7 billion, with a federal share of $834,000,000 (22 percent). The 

project is authorized by TEA21, section 3030(b)(19). In September 

175

2002, FTA approved the project’s entry into preliminary engineering. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recomments $250,000 for 

preliminary engineering and design activities. 

San Juan, Puerto Rico, Tren Urbano project.—The Puerto Rico 

Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTPW), through 

its Highway and Transportation Authority (PRHTA), is constructing a 10.7-mile (17.2 km) double-track guideway between Bayamon Centro and the Sagrado Corazon area of Santurce in San 

Juan. Approximately 40 percent of the alignment is at or near 

grade. The remainder, aside from a short below-grade segment in 

the Centro Medico area as well as an underground segment 

through Rio Piedras, is generally elevated above roadway rights-ofway. The project includes 16 stations and a vehicle and right of 

way maintenance/storage facility. The original capital cost for the 

project as specified in the FFGA totals $1,250,000,000 (escalated 

dollars). The cost of the project is now estimated at $1,653,600,000. 

The Tren Urbano project is expected to carry 113,300 riders per 

day in 2010. The Tren Urbano phase 1 environmental review process was completed in November 1995 and included 14 stations. The 

alignment design allowed for the future addition of two stations, 

one in Rio Piedras and one in Hato Rey. A record of decision (ROD) 

was issued in February 1996. In March 1996, FTA entered into an 

FFGA for the Tren Urbano project providing a Federal commitment 

of $307,400,000 in section 5309 new start funds out of a total 

project cost of $1,250,000,000. The cost of the project is now estimated at $1,653,000,000. Subsequent to the FFGA, three environmental assessments were prepared which revised the alignment at 

the Villa Nevarez station and added new stations, in Rio Piedras 

at the University of Puerto Rico, and in Hato Rey at Domenech 

Street. Findings of no significant impact (FONSI) by the FTA were 

issued for these three environmental assessments in November 

1996, February 1997, and July 1997, respectively. An amendment 

to the FFGA signed in July 1999, added the two stations identified 

in the environmental process as well as 10 additional railcars. The 

amendment also added $141,000,000 in section 5307 funds and 

$259,900,000 in flexible funding. The new cost estimate for the 

project encompasses the cost for extended project management and 

construction management services, for advance design development 

activities and for anticipated costs for claims and contingencies. 

The local share funding for the project is being provided by local 

revenues from the Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority (PRHTA). All operating costs, as well as debt service on 

PRHTA bonds, are included as part of the PRHTA annual budget, 

established in accordance with standard PRHTA budget procedures. The project was also awarded a TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 1998) loan of 

$300,000,000. The project is well into the construction phase of development. During 1996 and 1997, seven design-build contracts 

were awarded for different segments of the Tren Urbano phase 1 

system. The systems test track and turnkey contract, awarded in 

August 1996, provided for the purchase of rolling stock, design and 

installation of all systemwide components, construction of one of 

the civil segments, and operation and maintenance of Tren Urbano 

phase 1 for an initial period of five years. 

176

Contractors for this project have had problems meeting construction milestones and quality standards. Significant problems include 

tunnel misalignments, inadequate protection of steel reinforcements, cracking in guideways, and Buy America issues. Because of 

the serious, and unresolved, nature of these problems, FTA withheld a total of $165,690,000 ($105,700,000 in fiscal years 2000 and 

2001 appropriations, $20,000,000 in section 5307 urbanized formula funds in 2001, and $40,000,000 of flexible funds for fiscal 

year 2001) from the project until PRTHA submitted a recovery 

plan. The recovery plan has been submitted to FTA and in March 

2002, FTA released the withheld funds. The project is now expected 

to enter revenue service in 2003 or 2004, a slip from May 2002. 

Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $198,530,000 

in section 5309 new start funds for the project, with an additional 

$4,960,000 appropriated to the project but not included in the scope 

of the FFGA. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee recommends 

$59,740,000. 

St. Louis, Missouri, MetroLink St. Clair extension project.—The 

Bi-State Development Agency (Bi-State) is developing a 26-mile 

light rail line between downtown East St. Louis, Illinois, and the 

Mid America Airport in St. Clair County. The project will extend 

the MetroLink light rail project that opened in July 1993. The 

adopted alignment generally follows the former CSXT railroad 

right-of-way from East St. Louis to Belleville, Illinois, serving the 

Belleville Area College (now known as Southwest Illinois College), 

Scott Air Force Base and Mid America Airport. The ‘‘minimum operable segment’’ (MOS) includes 8 stations (seven with park and 

ride lots), 20 new light rail vehicles, and a new light rail vehicle 

maintenance facility in East St. Louis, Illinois. Revenue service 

began on May 5, 2001. The MOS is estimated to cost $339,200,000 

(escalated dollars). On October 17, 1996, Bi-State and FTA entered 

into an FFGA that commits $243,930,000 in section 5309 new start 

funds contributing to the total estimated cost of $339,200,000 (escalated dollars). An additional $8,500,000 in section 5309 new start 

funds were previously appropriated but not included in the FFGA 

scope. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated 

$249,040,000 in section 5309 new start funds for the FFGA covered 

minimum operable segment portion of the project. For fiscal year 

2003, the bill provides $3,368,422. 

Seattle, Sound Transit Central Link Light Rail.— The Committee 

has given special attention since January, 2001 to the Central Link 

Light Rail project in the Seattle region. Testimony from Sound 

Transit leadership and the Federal Transit Administration has assisted the Committee in evaluating the project and the management of it by its sponsor and by the FTA. The Inspector General 

issued an interim report on the project in April, 2001 which raised 

a number of issues to be addressed by Sound Transit and the FTA. 

The Committee takes note of the progress made in addressing 

these issues. Sound Transit’s Board of Directors adopted a new initial segment in November, 2001. This 14-mile line will run from 

Downtown Seattle to just north of Sea-Tac Airport. The FTA has 

given its approval to the commencement of final design on this segment. In anticipation of further developments on this project, the 

Committee has asked the Inspector General to update his report on 

it. The Committee will evaluate any future request for funding and/

177

or review of a proposed Full Funding Grant Agreement in light of 

the IG report and additional information from the grantee and the 

Administration.

JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE GRANTS

Appropriation

(General fund) 

Limitation on obligations 

(Trust fund) 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ................. $25,000,000 ($100,000,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............... 30,000,000 (120,000,000) 

Recommended in the bill ............................ 30,000,000 (120,000,000) 

Bill compared to: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .......... +5,000,000 (+20,000,000) 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ........ ................................ ................................

Section 3037 of TEA–21 established the job access and reverse 

commute (JARC) grants program. The program is to make competitive grants to qualifying metropolitan planning organizations, local 

governmental authorities, agencies, and non-profit organizations. 

Grants may not be used for planning or coordination activities. No 

more than $10,000,000 may be provided for reverse commute 

grants. 

For fiscal year 2003, the program is funded at a total level of 

$150,000,000, with $30,000,000 derived from the general fund and 

$120,000,000 derived from the mass transit account of the highway 

trust fund. These funds are guaranteed under the transit funding 

category. 

The Committee recommends the following allocations of job access and reverse commute grant program funds in fiscal year 2003:

Ajo to Phoenix, Arizona, rural express bus service ............................. $200,000 

City of Phoenix, Arizona, Valley Metro ............................................... 1,000,000 

Southwest Transit, Arizona, bus route 131 ......................................... 300,000 

AC Transit, California—CalWORKS Welfare to Work ....................... 3,000,000 

County of Santa Clara, California, Guaranteed Ride Home

Program .............................................................................................. 650,000 

East Palo Alto, California, shuttle service ........................................... 1,000,000 

Los Angeles County, California, MTA ................................................. 2,000,000 

Sacramento, California .......................................................................... 3,000,000 

State of Colorado ................................................................................... 1,524,471

State of Connecticut .............................................................................. 3,500,000 

Georgetown Metro Connection, Washington, DC ................................ 1,100,000 

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ............................. 2,500,000 

State of Delaware .................................................................................. 750,000 

Hillsborough, Florida (HART) .............................................................. 700,000 

Key West, Florida .................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Jacksonville, Florida, ChoiceRide ......................................................... 2,500,000 

Macon-Bibb County Transit Authority, Georgia, reverse commute 

program ............................................................................................... 1,000,000 

DuPage County, Illinois, coordinated paratransit program ............... 500,000 

State of Illinois, ways to work .............................................................. 400,000 

Ways-to-Work—Illinois and Missouri .................................................. 2,000,000 

Rock Island County Mass Transit District, Illinois, CityLINK ......... 360,000 

IndyGo Service, Indiana ........................................................................ 1,000,000 

Mid America Regional Council, Kansas ............................................... 1,000,000 

Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority, Kansas ................................ 1,600,000 

Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas ..... 1,000,000 

Community Transit Association of America, ....................................... 1,000,000 

Northern Tier Dial-A-Ride, Massachusetts ......................................... 400,000 

Transportation Services of Northern Berkshire, Massachusetts ....... 400,000 

State of Maryland .................................................................................. 5,000,000 

Flint, Michigan, Mass Transportation Authority ................................ 1,000,000 

Grand Rapids/Kent County, Michigan ................................................. 1,200,000 

Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota .......................................................... 1,000,000 

Metropolitan Kansas City Job Access Partnership, Missouri ............ 1,000,000 

178

St. Louis, Missouri, West Gateway Coordinating Council 

(Metrolink) .......................................................................................... 3,000,000 

Community Transportation Association of America’s Joblinks Employment Transportation Initiative, North Carolina ...................... 2,000,000 

Wake County, North Carolina, Coordinated Transportation System 1,000,000 

State of New Jersey ............................................................................... 5,000,000 

Binghamton, New York, Broome County Transit ............................... 250,000 

Central New York Regional Transportation Authority ...................... 500,000 

Columbia County, New York ................................................................ 100,000 

Long Island, New York (MTA) .............................................................. 500,000 

State of New York ................................................................................. 1,000,000 

Orange County, New York .................................................................... 100,000 

Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority, New York .. 600,000 

Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit—Tompkins County, New 

York ..................................................................................................... 300,000 

Central Ohio Transit Authority ............................................................ 600,000 

Toledo, Ohio ........................................................................................... 500,000 

Oklahoma Transit Association ............................................................. 5,000,000 

Portland, Oregon .................................................................................... 2,800,000 

Salem Area Transit, Oregon ................................................................. 1,000,000 

Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania ............................ 4,000,000 

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), 

Pennsylvania ...................................................................................... 6,000,000 

Rhode Island Public Transit ................................................................. 2,000,000 

Chattanooga, Tennessee ........................................................................ 500,000 

Abilene, Texas, (Citylink) ...................................................................... 200,000 

Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Reverse Commute 

Transit Exchange Center, Texas ....................................................... 2,000,000 

Lubbock, Texas, (Citibus) ...................................................................... 230,000 

Galveston, Texas .................................................................................... 600,000 

San Antonio, Texas, VIA Metropolitan Transit .................................. 1,250,000 

Corpus Christi, Texas ............................................................................ 1,700,000 

Texas, Just Transportation Alliance .................................................... 267,210

City of Charlottesville, Virginia ........................................................... 375,000

Fairfax County, Virginia ....................................................................... 1,600,000

Washington State, WorkFirst Initiative .............................................. 6,000,000 

Yakima, Washington, Ways to Work ................................................... 500,000 

Community Transit Association of the Northwest, Washington ....... 150,000 

State of Wisconsin ................................................................................. 5,200,000

Community Transit Association of America.—The Committee provides $1,000,000 for the Community Transit Association of America 

continuation of activities and programs to be used for demonstration projects, technical assistance for demonstration projects and 

technical assistance to small and urban and rural community providers. This assistance may include a toll-free hotline, on site technical assistance and training, preparation of technical manuals and 

related assistance. 

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (the corporation) is a wholly owned Government corporation established by 

the Saint Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954. The corporation 

is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and development of 

the United States portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between 

Montreal and Lake Erie, including the two Seaway locks located in 

Massena, NY and vessel traffic control in areas of the St. Lawrence 

River and Lake Ontario. The mission of the corporation is to serve 

the United States intermodal and international transportation system by improving the operation and maintenance of a safe, secure, 

reliable, efficient, and environmentally responsible deep-draft waterway. The corporation’s major priorities include: safety, reliability, environmental stewardship, trade development, manageVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00178 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
179

ment accountability, and bi-national collaboration with its Canadian counterpart. 

The Committee maintains a strong interest in maximizing the 

commercial use and competitive position of the Saint Lawrence 

Seaway. The general language under this heading is the same as 

the language provided in previous years. Continuation of this language in addition to that under the operations and maintenance 

appropriation will provide the corporation the flexibility and access 

to available resources needed to finance costs associated with unanticipated events, which could threaten the safe, secure, and uninterrupted use of the Seaway. The language permits the corporation 

to use sources of funding not designated for the harbor maintenance trust fund by Public Law 99–662—derived primarily from 

prior-years revenues received in excess of costs, unused borrowing 

authority, and miscellaneous income—for emergency purposes. 

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ..................................................... $13,345,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 1 ................................................. 14,086,000 

Recommended in the bill 2 3 ........................................................... 15,486,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .............................................. +2,141,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............................................ +1,400,000

1Does not reflect $702,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals. 

2Does not reflect reduction of $11,000 pursuant to Section 349 of Public Law 107–87. 3Does not reflect reduction of $10,000 pursuant to Section 1106 of Public Law 107–117. 

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $15,486,000 

to fund the operations and maintenance of the corporation. Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and revenues 

from non-federal sources finance the operation and maintenance of 

the Seaway for which the corporation is responsible. The appropriation recommended in the bill provides sufficient funding for the corporation’s capital priorities as well as for the recommendations of 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ survey and evaluation of the 

corporation’s lock and maintenance practices. Furthermore, the 

amount recommended in the bill includes funds for new and revised security measures that are based upon the results of an independent security assessment. The following summarizes the adjustments that were made to the budget request:

Additional security funds ...................................................................... +$1,431,000 

Deny FECA administrative costs ......................................................... ¥31,300

Security.—Following the events of September 11, 2001, the vulnerability of the Seaway’s infrastructure became a significant concern. Given the economic value and strategic importance of the 

Seaway, the corporation took immediate steps to enhance security 

and assess future needs. The corporation conducted an independent 

security risk assessment to determine the extent of enhancements 

required to secure the waterway’s facilities with minimal impact 

upon operations and commerce. The Committee applauds the corporation’s efforts to improve the security of its infrastructure without impeding trade and vessel operations, and has provided an additional $1,431,000 for these activities. The corporation’s efforts to 

mitigate the additional costs associated with security enhancements by seeking support from local entities that use common acVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00179 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
180

cess roads and land, such as the New York State Power Authority 

and New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, is recognized. Further efforts to obtain support and fiscal 

contributions from such organizations are encouraged. 

In addition to infrastructure enhancements, the corporation, in 

conjunction with its Canadian counterpart, established a protocol 

for addressing high risk inbound vessels. These efforts include 

early identification and a comprehensive inspection regimen coordinated between both the United States and Canadian Coast Guards. 

The efforts of the corporation are consistent with the U.S. Coast 

Guard’s intention of identifying high interest vessels well before 

they enter U.S. waters. The Committee applauds these efforts and 

encourages the corporation to continue the development of this protocol with assistance from the U.S. Coast Guard and Transportation Security Administration. 

FECA administrative costs.—The Committee has denied funding 

proposed in the budget for FECA administrative costs. This is consistent with actions taken DOT-wide. 

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION 

The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) was 

originally established by the Secretary of Transportation’s organizational changes dated July 20, 1977. The agency received statutory authority on October 24, 1992. RSPA has a broad portfolio. Its 

diverse jurisdictions include hazardous materials, pipelines, international standards, emergency transportation, and university research. RSPA provides research, analytical and technical support 

for transportation programs through headquarters offices and the 

Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2003 PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $99,574,000 in new budget authority to continue the operations, research and development, and 

grants-in-aid administered by the Research and Special Programs 

Administration. This is an increase of $1,345,000 from the fiscal 

year 2002 enacted level, excluding supplemental amounts. The following table summarizes fiscal year 2002 program levels, the fiscal 

year 2003 program requests, and the Committee’s recommendations:

Program Fiscal year 2002 enacted 1

Fiscal year 2003 estimate Recommended in the 

bill 

Research and special programs ............................................... 2 $39,779,000 3 $44,378,000 $40,677,000 

Hazardous materials user fee .................................................. .............................. ¥5,987,000 ..............................

Pipeline safety .......................................................................... 58,250,000 463,857,000 58,697,000 

Emergency preparedness grants .............................................. 200,000 200,000 200,000

Total ............................................................................. 98,229,000 102,448,000 99,574,000 

1 Does not reflect reduction of $348,000 pursuant to section 349 of Public Law 107–87 and section 1106 of Public Law 107–117. 2 Includes $2,500,000 in fiscal year 2002 emergency supplemental funding. 

3 Does not reflect accruals of $1,316,000 in FY 2003 for the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB). 4 Does not reflect accruals of $653,000 in FY 2003 for the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB). 

181

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 1 2 ................................................. $39,779,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 3 ................................................. 44,378,000 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................... 40,677,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .............................................. +898,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............................................ ¥3,700,000 1Does not reflect reduction of $210,000 pursuant to section 349 of Public Law 107–87 and section 1106 of 

Public Law 107–117. 2 Includes $2,500,000 in fiscal year 2002 emergency supplemental funding. 

3Does not reflect accruals of $1,316,000 for the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal 

Employee Health Benefits (FEHB). 

RSPA’s research and special programs administers a comprehensive nationwide safety program to: (1) protect the nation from the 

risks inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials by 

water, air, highway and railroad; (2) oversee the execution of the 

Secretary of Transportation’s statutory responsibilities for providing transportation services during national emergencies; and (3) 

coordinate the department’s research and development policy, planning, university research, and technology transfer. Overall policy, 

legal, financial, management and administrative support for 

RSPA’s programs is also provided under this appropriation. The 

total recommended program level for research and special programs is $40,677,000. Budget and staffing data for this appropriation are as follows:

Fiscal year 2002 enacted Fiscal year 2003 estimate Recommended in the 

bill 

Hazardous materials safety ...................................................... $21,217,000 $23,079,000 $22,998,000 

(Positions) ............................................................... (135) (137) (137) 

Hazardous materials safety user fees ...................................... .............................. ¥5,987,000 ..............................

Research and technology .......................................................... $2,784,000 2,854,000 2,846,000 

(Positions) ........................................................................ (9) (9) (9) 

Emergency transportation ......................................................... 4,397,000 2,058,000 1,951,000 

(Positions) ........................................................................ (9) (10) (9) 

Program support ....................................................................... 11,381,000 16,387,000 12,882,000 

(Positions) ........................................................................ (53) (67) (57)

Total, Research and Special Programs ....................... 39,779,000 38,391,000 40,677,000 

(Positions) ........................................................................ (206) (223) (212) 

The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget 

request:

Reduce funding for reimbursement of prior year budget decisions ............................................................................................. ¥$265,000 

Deny funding for one emergency transportation detailee position ............................................................................................... ¥100,000 

Deny ten positions for program support ....................................... ¥1,093,000 

Reduce funding for information technology infrastructure ......... ¥2,239,000 

Deny FECA administrative costs .................................................. ¥3,200

Prior year funding decisions.—The budget included $265,000 for 

reimbursement of salary and administrative funding that Congress 

did not provide in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill. The 

Committee has made its decisions regarding fiscal year 2002 funding levels, and therefore deletes funding for this purpose. 

New positions.—The budget included a request for two new personnel for the office of hazardous materials. This is to compensate 

for the two personnel provided for this purpose in 2002 that were 

transferred to other hazardous materials safety duties in the wake 

of September 11th. These new employees are part of the strategic 

182

hazardous materials incident reduction team. The Committee has 

provided funding associated with these new positions. 

The budget also requested a total of fourteen new positions for 

RSPA’s information management program for information technology (IT) infrastructure (7), administrative support (3), and financial management (4). The Committee has provided a total of 

four of these new positions, two of which are accounting positions 

to establish proper accounting procedures. The Committee has also 

provided funding for one security officer and for one network administrator/computer analyst. 

Although the Committee remains concerned that RSPA’s information technology strategic plan did not adequately address a definitive order of infrastructure upgrades or a timeline of development for other large improvements, subsequent meetings and discussions indicate a need for some additional staff in the IT arena. 

The Government Information Security Reform Act requires RSPA 

to employ one security officer to develop, implement, and maintain 

a security program that assesses risk and maintains security. 

Emergency transportation detailee.—RSPA requested $100,000 to 

pay for an existing detailee position from the Department of Defense to serve as a liaison officer in the office of emergency transportation. Because this position is filled by an employee of the Department of Defense, not RSPA, and detailees are customarily paid 

for by the sponsoring department, the Committee deletes funding 

for this purpose. 

Research and technology.—The Committee has funded the request of $1,560,000 for research and development planning and 

transportation infrastructure assurance. The Committee encourages RSPA to continue to evaluate and streamline their research 

programs to eliminate duplicative programs within RSPA and 

among other modal administrations in DOT. 

In addition, Section 352(b) of the Department of Transportation 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY 2002 directs DOT, 

in consultation with the Comptroller General, to conduct a study 

of the effects on public health and safety, the environment, and the 

economy association with the transportation of hazardous and radioactive materials. The Committee is disturbed to learn that DOT 

did not consult with the Comptroller General on the report that it 

submitted to the Congress. The GAO only received a draft report 

for review one week prior to its scheduled delivery date to Congress, although the GAO offered several times since January 2002 

to consult with DOT on the scope and design of the study. DOT’s 

report does not fully address all of the matters requested by the 

Committee and provides only a description of the transportation 

systems in the United States. The Committee understands that the 

issues to be studied are complex in nature, but it is clear that 

RSPA performed very little analysis in what it provided to Congress. 

Therefore, the Committee directs the General Accounting Office 

(GAO) to provide a report by February 1, 2003, evaluating RSPA’s 

research program. The report should address RSPA’s effectiveness 

in coordinating with other modes of transport, including the avoidance of duplication; contain a description of how RSPA develops its 

research agenda and evaluates the outcomes; and include an overVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00182 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
183

view of current RSPA projects, including challenges and successes 

of the program. 

The Committee also directs the GAO to provide a separate report 

by February 1, 2003, on RSPA’s transportation infrastructure assurance research initiative begun in fiscal year 2001. The report 

should address the status of the program, key vulnerabilities (both 

safety and security) of national transportation infrastructure, and 

a description of how the events of September 11, 2001, and the subsequent establishment of the Transportation Security Administration, may have changed the initial objectives of the program. 

Information technology infrastructure.—The Committee has reduced funding by $2,239,000 from the request for computer infrastructure, for a total funding level of $1,500,000. The Committee 

notes that the funding provided is a significant increase from the 

$123,000 made available the previous year. The Committee directs 

RSPA to develop a spending plan by December 31, 2002, that details exactly how these funds will be spent and how the plan best 

addresses RSPA’s needs. The Committee directs RSPA to focus its 

information technology investment funding on safety and security 

related mission critical areas, such as pipeline safety and hazardous materials areas, as well as on addressing the internal and 

external computer-related security threats identified by the March 

2002 security posture assessment report. Further, the Committee 

directs RSPA to provide a detailed report to both the House and 

Senate Committees on Appropriations on the status of the infrastructure upgrades, including an itemization of spent resources and 

the sequence in which RSPA addresses security and infrastructure 

needs, by March 15, 2003. 

FECA administrative costs.—The Committee has reduced funding by $3,200 from the budget request for workers compensation 

administrative costs as explained in this report. 

User fees.—The Committee disagrees with the budget request to 

begin funding the hazardous materials safety program from user 

fees. On February 14, 2001, RSPA finalized a rule that changed the 

agency’s registration and fee assessment program for persons who 

transport, or offer for transport, certain categories and quantities 

of hazardous materials. The rule increased the number of persons 

required to register and increased the annual registration fee for 

shippers and carriers which are not small businesses. These fees 

have raised additional funds to enhance support for the national 

hazardous materials emergency preparedness grant program. 

To begin funding the hazardous materials safety program would 

require RSPA to initiate a rule to collect $5,987,000 in user fees in 

fiscal year 2003 and fully fund the office of hazardous materials beginning in fiscal year 2004. These fees would be above those already in place for emergency preparedness grants. Currently, this 

new fee is not authorized. Further, the Committee is concerned 

about raising fees twice on a small segment of the transportation 

industry. While the Committee supported fees to increase funding 

available for emergency preparedness training and grants, it is unwilling to have the same segment of the industry fully fund the 

Federal Government’s entire hazardous materials safety program. 

184

PIPELINE SAFETY

(Pipeline safety 

fund) 

(Oil spill liability 

trust fund) Total 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 1 ......... $50,386,000 $7,864,000 $58,250,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2003 2 ..... 56,385,000 7,472,000 63,875,000

Recommended in the bill ...................... 51,225,000 7,472,000 58,697,000

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .... +839,000 ¥392,000 +447,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2003 ¥5,160,000 ...................... ¥5,160,000 1Does not reflect reduction of $138,000 pursuant to section 349 of Public Law 107–87 and section 1106 of 

Public Law 107–117. 2Does not reflect accruals of $653,000 for the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the Federal 

Employee Health Benefits (FEHB). 

The pipeline safety program is responsible for a national regulatory program to protect the public against the risks to life and 

property in the transportation of natural gas, petroleum and other 

hazardous materials by pipeline. The enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 also expanded the role of the pipeline safety program in environmental protection and resulted in a new emphasis 

on spill prevention and containment of oil and hazardous substances from pipelines. The office develops and enforces federal 

safety regulations and administers a grants-in-aid program to state 

pipeline programs. 

The bill includes $58,697,000 to continue pipeline safety operations, research and development, and state grants-in-aid in fiscal 

year 2003. This is a 1 percent increase from the level enacted for 

fiscal year 2002. The bill specifies that of the total appropriation, 

$7,472,000 shall be derived from the oil spill liability trust fund 

and $51,225,000 shall be from the pipeline safety fund. 

The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget 

request:

Reduce funding reimbursement of prior year funding decisions ¥$286,000 

Deny twelve new positions ............................................................ ¥1,152,000 

Reduce requested research and development increase ............... ¥4,008,000 

Deny FECA administrative costs .................................................. ¥15,000 

Prior year funding decisions.—The budget included $286,000 for 

reimbursement of salary and administrative funding that Congress 

did not provide in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill. The 

Committee has made its decisions regarding fiscal year 2002, and 

therefore deletes funding for this purpose. 

New positions.—The budget included a request for fifteen new 

pipeline safety-related positions, eight of which are specialists/inspectors to support the integrity management program, two are integrity support technical specialists and five are community assistance positions. The Committee notes that of the twenty-six pipeline 

safety related positions provided in fiscal year 2002, just over half 

have been filled. Therefore, the Committee has provided a total of 

three new positions—two specialists/inspectors to support the integrity assessment validation and enforcement and security preparedness work and one integrity support technical specialist. 

Research and development.—RSPA requested a total increase of 

$4,008,000 over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level for research and 

development programs. This increase is due to the transfer of the 

Department of Energy’s pipeline infrastructure research and development program into RSPA. The DOE’s research program differs 

significantly from RSPA’s as it focuses on pipeline materials and 

185

structure research. The Committee does not support this transfer 

and deletes funding for this purpose. 

Further, the Committee questions the dramatic increase in the 

R&D budget since fiscal year 2001, noting that the 2003 request 

would represent a 70 percent increase in the R&D budget in a span 

of two years. The Committee is concerned that these increases will 

not be effectively managed and utilized. The GAO is directed to 

provide a report to both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by January 15, 2003, on the effectiveness of RSPA’s 

pipeline safety research and development program. 

FECA administrative costs.—The Committee has reduced funding by $15,000 from the budget request for workers compensation 

administrative costs as explained in this report. 

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ..................................................... $200,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................... 200,000 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................... 200,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .............................................. ................................

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............................................ ................................

The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 

1990 (HMTUSA) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a 

reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor 

public sector emergency response training and planning and provide technical assistance to states, political subdivisions and Indian 

tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders. 

The bill includes $200,000, the same amount as requested, for activities related to emergency response training curriculum development and updates, as authorized by section 117(A)(i)(3)(B) of 

HMTUSA. The Committee has provided an obligation limitation of 

$14,300,000 for the emergency preparedness grant program.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 1 ....................................................... $51,914,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ....................................................... 57,421,000 

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 57,421,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .................................................. +5,507,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................ ............................

1 Includes $1,300,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations. 

The Inspector General’s office was established in 1978 to provide 

an objective and independent organization that would be more effective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in 

departmental programs and operations; and (2) providing a means 

of keeping the Secretary of Transportation and the Congress fully 

and currently informed of problems and deficiencies in the administration of such programs and operations. According to the authorizing legislation, the Inspector General (IG) is to report dually to 

the Secretary of Transportation and to the Congress. 

186

The Committee recommendation provides $57,421,000 for activi- ties of the Office of Inspector General, an increase of $5,507,000 

(10.6 percent) above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and the 

same as the administration’s request. The Committee continues to 

value highly the work of the Office of Inspector General in oversight of departmental programs and activities. In addition, the OIG 

will receive $7,624,000 from other agencies in this bill, as noted 

below:

Federal Highway Administration ...................................................... $3,524,000 

Federal Transit Administration ........................................................ 2,000,000 

Federal Aviation Administration ...................................................... 2,000,000 

National Transportation Safety Board ............................................. 100,000 

The OIG’s total funding of $65,045,000 represents an increase of 

9.2 percent above the fiscal year 2002 level. 

Backlog in criminal investigative cases.—Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, approximately 45 percent of OIG’s 

criminal investigative resources have been diverted from other 

transportation investigations to perform aviation security requirements. As a result, important fraud investigations have suffered, 

particularly in the aviation safety, highway, and transit program 

areas. Since the increased funding provided in TEA–21 and AIR– 21, the OIG has seen a sharp spike in investigations of contract 

and grant fraud. For example, in fiscal year 2001, OIG fraud investigations resulted in 72 indictments and 51 convictions. This was 

an increase of 33 percent in indictments and 42 percent in convictions over fiscal year 2000. While the additional resources for security activities has been important, over 250 investigations are currently either in a suspended status, not yet assigned, or have been 

delayed, impacting the statute of limitations in many cases. There 

are over 90 backlogged criminal contract and grant fraud cases involving bribery, collusion, kickback, or criminal conspiracy. The 

Committee believes it is crucial for the OIG to begin address these 

backlogged cases without further delay. 

Support for homeland security agencies and activities.—The Committee understands that OIG audit and investigative costs in support of those agencies proposed for transfer to the Department of 

Homeland Security may be proposed for transfer to the new OIG 

for the Department of Homeland Security. The Committee notes 

that the recent workload of the Department of Transportation OIG 

for the Coast Guard and TSA is not indicative of a reasonable recurring level of effort. The high level of resources in these program 

areas is due to special Congressional requests in the area of Coast 

Guard search and rescue and the need for additional oversight during the start-up period for TSA. A large portion of these resources 

have been diverted from other critical audit and investigative activities, and cannot simply be transferred to a new department 

without serious impact on DOT operations. The Committee expects 

the administration to consider long-term resource trends, as well as 

the need to maintain a viable audit and investigative presence in 

DOT, as a part of internal planning for the new homeland security 

department. 

Disadvantaged business enterprise program audit, New Orleans 

area, LA.—The Committee is aware of, and strongly concerned 

about, disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) abuses that may 

have occurred under the administration of current DOT DBE proVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00186 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
187

grams at the Louis Armstrong International Airport, the New Orleans Regional Transit Authority, and the Orleans Levee Board. In 

August 2001, the Committee requested a thorough report on all instances in which federal DBE regulations may have been violated. 

The Committee requested that the IG specifically examine all firms 

certified under these programs and report any specific cases of improper certification. The Committee has not received the IG report, 

and requests its submission no later than June 1, 2003. 

Unfair business practices.—The bill maintains language first enacted in fiscal year 2000 which authorizes the OIG to investigate 

allegations of fraud and unfair or deceptive practices and unfair 

methods of competition by air carriers and ticket agents. 

Audit reports.—The Committee requests the Inspector General to 

continue forwarding copies of all audit reports to the Committee 

immediately after they are issued, and to continue to make the 

Committee aware immediately of any review that recommends cancellation of, or modification to, any major acquisition project or 

grant, or which recommends significant budgetary savings. The 

OIG is also directed to withhold from public distribution for a period of 15 days any final audit or investigative report which was 

requested by the House or Senate Committees on Appropriations. 

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 1 ....................................................... $18,457,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 2 ..................................................... 19,459,000 

Recommended in the bill 3 ................................................................. 19,450,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .................................................. +993,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ................................................ ¥9,000 1Does not reflect a reduction of $5,000 pursuant to section 349 of Public Law 107–87 and a reduction of 

$4,000 pursuant to section 1106 of Public Law 107–117. Of this total, $950,000 is offset through the collection of user fees. 2Does not reflect accruals of $1,192,200 for the for the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and the 

Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) in the FY 2003 request. 3 Assumes collection of $1,000,000 in user fees, to offset the appropriation as the fees are collected 

throughout the fiscal year. 

The Surface Transportation Board was created on January 1, 

1996 by P.L. 104–88, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) 

Termination Act of 1995. Consistent with the continued trend toward less regulation of the surface transportation industry, the Act 

abolished the ICC; eliminated certain functions that had previously 

been implemented by the ICC; transferred core rail and certain 

other provisions to the Board; and transferred certain other motor 

carrier functions to the Federal Highway Administration (now 

under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration). The 

Board is specifically responsible for regulation of the rail and pipeline industries and certain non-licensing regulations of motor carriers and water carriers. The law empowers the Board through its 

exemption authority to promote deregulation administratively on a 

case-by-case basis and continues intact the important rail reforms 

made by the Staggers Rail Act of 1980. 

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $19,450,000. 

Included in the recommended amount is an estimated $1,000,000 

in fees, which will offset the appropriated funding. At this funding 

level, the Board will be able to accommodate 145 full-time equivalent positions. 

188

The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget 

request:

Deny FECA administrative costs .................................................... ¥$9,100 

FECA administrative costs.—The Committee has reduced funding by $9,100 from the budget request for workers compensation 

administrative costs as explained elsewhere in this report. 

User fees.—Current statutory authority, under the Independent 

Offices Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), grants the Board the 

authority to collect user fees. The Committee agrees with the budget request that $1,000,000 in user fees is reasonable. 

Language is included in the bill allowing the fees to be credited 

to the appropriation as offsetting collections, and reducing the general fund appropriation on a dollar-for-dollar basis as the fees are 

received and credited. This language, continued from last year, 

simplifies the tracking of the collections and provides the Board 

with more flexibility in spending its appropriated funds. 

Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger.—On December 12, 1997, 

the Board granted a joint request of Union Pacific Railroad Company and the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County, KS (Wichita/

Sedgwick) to toll the 18-month mitigation study pending in Finance 

Docket No. 32760. The decision indicated that at such time as the 

parties reach agreement or discontinue negotiations, the Board 

would take appropriate action. 

By petition filed June 26, 1998, Wichita/Sedgwick and UP/SP indicated that they had entered into an agreement, and jointly petitioned the Board to impose the agreement as a condition of the 

Board’s approval of the UP/SP merger. By decision dated July 8, 

1998, the Board agreed and imposed the agreement as a condition 

to the UP/SP merger. The terms of the negotiated agreement remain in effect. If UP/SP or any of its divisions or subsidiaries materially changes or is unable to achieve the assumptions on which the 

Board based its final environmental mitigation measures, then the 

Board should reopen Finance Docket 32760 if requested by interested parties, and prescribe additional mitigation properly reflecting these changes if shown to be appropriate. 

TITLE II 

RELATED AGENCIES 

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS 

COMPLIANCE BOARD 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 ..................................................... $5,015,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 1 ................................................. 5,194,000 

Recommended in the bill 2 ............................................................. 5,194,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .............................................. +179,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............................................ ................................ 1Does not reflect $146,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals. 

2Does not reflect reduction of $146,000 pursuant to Section 301 of Public Law 106–113. 

A total of $5,194,000 has been allocated for the operations of the 

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, the 

funding level requested by the administration. The recommended 

189

appropriation total provides adequate funding to support two additional full time equivalent (FTE) positions as requested for a total 

of 32 FTEs. 

The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board (the Access Board) is the lead Federal Agency promoting accessibility for all handicapped persons. The Access Board was reauthorized in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, Public 

Law 102–569. Under this authorization, the Access Board’s functions are to ensure compliance with the Architectural Barriers Act 

of 1968, and to develop guidelines for and technical assistance to 

individuals and entities with rights or duties under titles II and III 

of the American with Disabilities Act. The Access Board establishes 

minimum accessibility guidelines and requirements for public accommodations and commercial facilities, transit facilities and vehicles, state and local government facilities, children’s environments, 

and recreational facilities. The Access Board also provides technical 

assistance to Government agencies, public and private organizations, individuals, and businesses on the removal of accessibility 

barriers. 

Electronic Resources.—Through the use of Internet and other 

electronic media, the Access Board has significantly expanded the 

dissemination of accessibility guidelines. The Committee commends 

this efficient use of electronic resources and encourages such innovative efforts to further promote accessibility for all persons with 

unique and special needs. 

FECA administrative costs.—No funding has been provided for 

FECA administrative costs, as discussed earlier in the report. 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 1 ................................................... $68,650,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 2 ................................................. 70,480,000 

Recommended in the bill ............................................................... 71,270,000 

Bill compared with: 

Appropriation, fiscal year 2002 .............................................. +2,620,000 

Budget request, fiscal year 2003 ............................................ +790,000 1 Includes $650,000 in supplemental emergency appropriations. 

2 Excludes $3,400,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals. 

Under the Independent Safety Board Act, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is responsible for improving transportation safety by investigating accidents, conducting special studies, 

developing recommendations to prevent accidents, evaluating the 

effectiveness of the transportation safety programs of other agencies, and reviewing appeals of adverse actions involving airman 

and seaman certificates and licenses, and civil penalties issued by 

the Department of Transportation. 

The bill includes an appropriation of $71,270,000 for salaries and 

expenses, an increase of $2,620,000 (4 percent) above the fiscal 

year 2002 enacted level and $790,000 above the request. The additional funds shall be used to cover the safety academy’s rental costs 

and necessary academy staffing in 2003. Of the funds provided, up 

to $2,000 may be used for official reception and representation expenses as requested. The Committee expects to be advised if the 

Board proposes to deviate in any way from the staff year allocaVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00189 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
190

tions or by more than five percent from the funding allocations described in the budget justifications. 

FECA administrative costs.—No funding has been provided for 

FECA administrative costs, as discussed earlier in the report. 

TITLE III 

GENERAL PROVISIONS 

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

The Committee concurs with the general provisions that apply to 

the Department of Transportation and related agencies as proposed 

in the budget with the following changes: 

The Committee does not approve the requested deletion of the 

following sections, all of which were contained in the fiscal year 

2002 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (section numbers may be different): 

Section 320 prohibits funds in this Act unless the Secretary of 

Transportation notifies the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than three full business days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by the department 

or its modal administrations. 

Section 321 prohibits funds for design or construction of a light 

rail system in Houston, Texas, without meeting the conditions listed. 

Section 322 prohibits funds in this Act for engineering work related to an additional runway at New Orleans International Airport. 

Section 326 prohibits funds for the Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation to approve assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act, unless such assessments or agreements have completed the normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification. 

The Committee included the following general provisions as requested with modifications: 

Section 304 prohibits funds in this Act for salaries and expenses 

of more than 107 political and Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation and includes a provision that prohibits 

political and Presidential personnel to be assigned on temporary 

detail outside the Department of Transportation or any independent agency funded in this Act. 

Section 315 prohibits funds to compensate in excess of 350 technical staff years under the federally funded research and development center contract between the Federal Aviation Administration 

and the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development. 

Section 323 prohibits funds in this Act to be used to adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide the Federal Aviation Administration or the Transportation Security Administration ‘‘without cost’’ buildings, maintenance or space for 

FAA or TSA services, including air traffic control, air navigation, 

aviation security or weather reporting. The prohibition does not 

apply to negotiations between FAA or TSA and airport sponsors 

concerning ‘‘below market’’ rates for such services or to grant asVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00190 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
191

surances that require airport sponsors to provide land without cost 

to the FAA for air traffic control facilities or to the TSA for security 

checkpoints. 

Section 324 amends the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 

Century (112 Stat. 272) to increase the percentage take-down for 

FHWA administrative funds. 

Section 325 allows States to use funds provided under section 

402 of title 23, U.S.C., to produce and place highway safety public 

service messages. 

The Committee included the following new provisions: 

Section 327 prohibits funds in this Act from being used to issue, 

implement, or enforce a regulation that diminishes or revokes an 

exemption authorized under 345 of the National Highway System 

Designation Act of 1995. 

Section 328 requires the Secretary of Transportation to make a 

grant from the Local Rail Freight Assistance program in the 

amount of $690,287 to the State of Iowa for a rail infrastructure 

rehabilitation project on the Iowa Northern Railway. 

Section 329 requires payments into the Department of Defense 

Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund for fiscal year 2003 to 

be from funds available in the Coast Guard Operating Expenses account. 

Section 330 reallocates funds for the Wilmington, Delaware, 

downtown transit connector and for the Wilmington downtown corridor project. 

Section 331 amends section 1602 of the Transportation Equity 

Act for the 21st Century (112 Stat. 272) to allow changes to 

projects in Pennsylvania, Louisiana, New York, and Texas; authorizes an eligibility change for Alaska under FTA’s section 5309 program; transfers funds in California contained in P.L. 103–331; and 

includes the city of Norman, OK to be considered as part of the 

Oklahoma City Transportation Management Area. 

Section 332 prohibits the use of funds in this Act for DOT to finalize or implement ‘‘Statewide Planning, Metropolitan Transportation Planning’’ rule published on June 19, 2002. 

Section 333 prohibits the use of funds in this Act for DOT to develop or implement a pilot program allowing commercial drivers 18 

to 20 years of age to operate commercial motor carriers in interstate commerce. 

Section 334 amends the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 to extend the exemption from the federal axle 

weight restrictions to include over-the-road buses. 

Section 335 subjects funds provided in this Act to the stipulations in Section 350 of Public Law 107–87, including the annual report on the safety and security of Mexico-domicited motor carriers 

operating in the United States. 

Section 336 amends Section 11123 of title 49, United States 

Code, to ensure that emergency rail service is continued if Amtrak 

should cease operation. 

Section 337 encourages the Secretary of Transportation and the 

FAA to implement a plan between the State of Illinois, the City of 

Chicago, and other parties for the purpose of modernizing O’Hare 

International Airport, continuing operation of Meigs Field, and utilizing existing airports to help relieve congestion. 

192

Section 338 amends the Air Transportation Safety and System 

Stabilization Act by inserting into section 402 the definition of the 

term ‘‘air carrier.’’

Section 339 requires the FAA to report to Congress on the safety 

implications of allowing small airports to use AIP funds to build or 

equip a visual flight rule air traffic control tower that would be operated under the contract tower program and on whether small airports that have already built towers should be eligible for reimbursement from the AIP funds. 

Section 340 prohibits funds provided in this Act to be transferred 

without expressed authority. 

Section 341 requires Amtrak to submit an annual report to the 

appropriate Congressional Committees detailing their per passenger operating loss for each rail line. 

Section 342 requires that any explosive detection system purchased pursuant to 49 U.S.C 44901(d) will be purchased by the 

Under Secretary of Transportation for Security. 

Section 343 amends language in the Aviation and Transportation 

Security Act, so as to only require the use of law enforcement officers at airports, instead of designating the use of federal officers. 

Section 344 limits the use of funds to terminate or limit restrictions imposed under Federal Aviation Administration Notices to 

Airmen FDC 1/3353 or 2/9583. 

Section 345 restricts procurement of Coast Guard ships unless 

they are in compliance with the Buy American Act. 

Section 346 amends section 13703, of title 49, United States 

Code, by allowing the STB to approve applications from truck rate 

bureaus seeking to publish national rates. 

Section 347 restricts funds to apply or enforce a regulatory requirement for strengthening flight deck doors until further review 

by the TSA. 

The Committee has not included provisions proposed in the budget: (1) limiting federal funds for new fixed guideway projects to no 

more than 50 percent; (2) allowing funds for construction of state 

border safety inspection facilities in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas; (3) allowing Federal Highway Administration funds 

to purchase promotional items for employment recruiting and safety programs; (4) increasing fees charged for hazardous material 

registration and inspection and crediting such fees to the Research 

and Special Programs account; (5) authorizing collection of fees for 

railroad safety and crediting such fees to the Federal Railroad Administration account; (6) restricting eligibility for essential air service subsidies; and (7) authorizing the waiving of the matching requirements of the emergency fund under section 125 and the federal share of section 123, United States Code. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS 

The following items are included in accordance with various requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives: 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states: 

193

Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution 

of a public character, shall include a statement citing the 

specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution 

to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report 

this legislation from clause 7 of section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states: 

No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of Appropriations made by law...

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this 

specific power granted by the Constitution. 

TRANSFERS OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following statement is submitted describing 

the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying bill. 

The Committee recommends the following transfers: 

Under Federal Transit Administration, Formula grants: Provided 

further, That notwithstanding section 3008 of Public Law 105–178, 

the $50,000,000 to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5308 shall be transferred to 

and merged with funding provided for the replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase of buses and related equipment and the construction of bus-related facilities under ‘‘Federal Transit Administration, Capital investment grants’’. 

Under Federal Railroad Administration, under Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation: Provided that up to 

$100,000,000 from capital grants shall be transferred to operating 

expenses if approved by the Secretary of the Department of Transportation. 

Under the general provisions: 

Sec. 313. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except 

for fixed guideway modernization projects, funds made available by 

this Act under ‘‘Federal Transit Administration, Capital investment 

grants’’ for projects specified in this Act or identified in reports accompanying this Act not obligated by September 30, 2005, and 

other recoveries, shall be available for other projects under 49 

U.S.C. 5309. 

Sec. 314. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any funds 

appropriated before October 1, 2002, under any section of chapter 

53 of title 49, United States Code, that remain available for expenditure may be transferred to and administered under the most 

recent appropriation heading for any such section. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following is a statement of general performance goals and objectives for which this measure authorizes funding: 

The Committee on Appropriations strongly considers program 

performance, including a program’s success in developing and attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing funding 

recommendations. This includes a review of agency and departmental performance plans, audits, and investigations of the U.S. 

194

General Accounting Office and the Department of Transportation 

Office of Inspector General, and other performance-related information. The Committee’s goal is to provide adequate, but not excessive, resources for the programs covered by this Act, consistent 

with funding allocations provided by the Congressional budget 

process. 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE) 

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, 

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, 

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman): 

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY FOR THE 21st CENTURY 

* * * * * * *

TITLE I—FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS 

* * * * * * *

Subtitle F—High Priority Projects 

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1602. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS. 

Subject to section 117 of title 23, United States Code, the amount 

listed for each high priority project in the following table shall be 

available (from amounts made available by section 1101(a)(13) of 

the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century) for fiscal years 

1998 through 2003 to carry out each such project: 

No. State Project description (Dollars in 

millions) 

1. Georgia .................. I–75 advanced transportation management system in Cobb County .................. 1.7

*******

75. New York ............... øConstruct Edgewater Road Dedicated 

Truck Route¿ Bronx, NY River Greenway ............................................................ 9

*******

230. New York ............... øConstruct new exit 46A on I–90 at Route 

170 in North Chili¿ Monroe County 

transportation improvements on Long 

Pond Road, Pattonwood Road, and 

Leyll road ................................................. 6

*******

426. Louisiana ............... Conduct feasibility study, design and construction of connector between Louisiana Highway ø16¿ 1026 to I–12 in 

Livingston Parish .................................... 3.75

*******

696. Pennsylvania ......... Gettysburg comprehensive road improvement study and construction of projects 

identified in the study ............................. 3

195

No. State Project description (Dollars in 

millions) 

*******

933. New York ............... øRedesign Grand Concourse to enhance 

traffic flow and related enhancements 

between E. 161st Street and Fordham 

Road, New York City¿ Design, construction, and related enhancement of the 

Grand Concourse between E. 161st St. 

and E. 166th St., New York City ............ 9.75

*******

1108. Texas ...................... øConstruct 6th and 7th Street overpass 

over railroad yard, Brownsville¿ Construct west Rail Project in or near 

Brownsville, including a new railroad 

international bridge crossing over the 

Rio Grande River ..................................... 0.375

*******

1269. New York ............... øImplement Melrose Commons geographic 

information system¿ Bronx, NY Center 

Transportation Project ............................. 0.75

*******

1344. New York ............... øUpgrade Frederick Douglas Circle, New 

York City¿ Upgrade Frederic Douglas 

Circle and Manahattan Avenue from 

West 110th Street to West 125th Street, 

New York City .......................................... 9

*******

1735. Pennsylvania ......... Construct new interchange at I–95 and 

PA Turnpike and related improvements, 

including Type II noise abatement 

projects along Interstate 95 in Bensalem 

Township between Exit 25 and 26, 

Bucks County ........................................... 5

*******

TITLE III—FEDERAL TRANSIT 

ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS 

* * * * * * *

SEC. 3030. PROJECTS FOR NEW FIXED GUIDEWAY SYSTEMS AND EXTENSIONS TO EXISTING SYSTEMS. 

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(d) EFFECT OF AUTHORIZATION.— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) INTERMODAL CENTER AUTHORIZATIONS.—Notwithstanding 

any other provision of law, each of the following projects are 

eligible for funding under section 5309(m)(1)(C) of title 49, 

United States Code: 

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

196

ø(D)¿ (E) Alabama State Docks intermodal passenger 

and freight facility.

(F) Port of Anchorage Intermodal passenger and freight 

facility.

* * * * * * *

ALASKA RAILROAD TRANSFER ACT OF 1982

(Title VI of Public Law 97–468)

TITLE VI—ALASKA RAILROAD TRANSFER 

* * * * * * *

TRANSFER AUTHORIZATION

SEC. 604. (a)***

(b)(1) On the date of transfer, the Secretary shall simultaneously: 

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

Prior to taking the action specified in subparagraphs (A) through 

(D) of this paragraph, the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of the Interior. The exclusive-use easement granted pursuant to subparagraph (D) of this paragraph and all rights afforded 

by such easement shall be exercised only for railroad purposes, and 

for such other transportation, transmission, or communication purposes for which lands subject to such easement were utilized as of 

the date of enactment of this Act. øIn the event of reversion to the 

United States, pursuant to section 610 of this title, of the State’s 

interests in all or part of the lands subject to such easement, such 

easement shall terminate with respect to the lands subject to such 

reversion, and no new exclusive-use easement with respect to such 

reverted lands shall be granted except by Act of Congress.¿

* * * * * * *

FUTURE RIGHTS-OF-WAY

SEC. 609. (a)***

* * * * * * *

ø(c) Reversion to the United States of any portion of any rightof-way or exclusive-use easement granted to the State or Stateowned railroad shall occur only as provided in section 610 of this 

title. For purposes of such section, the date of the approval of any 

such right-of-way shall be deemed the ‘‘date of transfer’’. 

øREVERSION

øSEC. 610. (a) If, within ten years after the date of transfer to 

the State authorized by section 604 of this title, the Secretary finds 

that all or part of the real property transferred to the State under 

this title, except that portion of real property which lies within the 

boundaries of the Denali National Park and Preserve, is converted 

to a use that would prevent the State-owned railroad from continuing to operate, that real property (including permanent improvements to the property) shall revert to the United States GovVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00196 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
197

ernment, or (at the option of the State) the State shall pay to the 

United States Government an amount determined to be the fair 

market value of that property at the time its conversion prevents 

continued operation of the railroad. 

ø(b) If, after the date of transfer pursuant to section 604 of this 

title, the State discontinues use of any land within the right-ofway, the State’s interest in such land shall revert to the United 

States. The State shall be considered to have discontinued use 

within the meaning of this subsection and subsection (d) of this 

section when: 

ø(1) the Governor of the State of Alaska delivers to the Secretary of the Interior a notice of such discontinuance, including 

a legal description of the property subject to the notice, and a 

quitclaim deed thereto; or 

ø(2) the State has made no use of the land for a continuous 

period of eighteen years for transportation, communication, or 

transmission purposes. Notice of such discontinuance shall 

promptly be published in the Federal Register by the Secretary, the Secretary of the Interior, or the Secretary of Agriculture, and reversion shall be effected one year after such notice, unless within such one-year period the State brings an appropriate action in the United States District Court for the 

District of Alaska to establish that the use has been continuing 

without an eighteen-year lapse. Any such action shall have the 

effect of staying reversion until exhaustion of appellate review 

from the final judgment in that action or termination of the 

right to seek such review, whichever first occurs. 

ø(c) Upon such reversion pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, the Secretary of the Interior shall immediately convey by patent to abutting landowners all right, title and interest of the 

United States. Where land abutting the reverted right-of-way is 

owned by different persons or entities, the conveyance made pursuant to this subsection shall extend the property of each abutting 

owner to the centerline of the right-of-way. 

ø(d) If use is discontinued (as that term is used in subsection (b) 

of this section) of all or part of those properties of the Alaska Railroad transferred to the State pursuant to this title which lie within 

the boundaries of the Denali National Park and Preserve or the 

Chugach National Forest, such properties or part thereof (including 

permanent improvements to the property) shall revert to the 

United States and shall not be subject to subsection (c) of this section. Upon such reversion, jurisdiction over that property shall be 

transferred to the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture, as appropriate, for administration as part of the Denali 

National Park and Preserve or the Chugach National Forest. 

ø(e) Except as provided in subsections (a) through (d) of this section, if, within five years after the date of transfer to the State pursuant to section 604 of this title, the State sells or transfers all or 

substantially all of the State-owned railroad to an entity other than 

an instrumentality of the State, the proceeds from the sale or 

transfer that exceed the cost of any rehabilitation and improvement 

made by the State for the State-owned railroad and any net liabilities incurred by the State for the State-owned railroad shall be 

paid into the general fund of the Treasury of the United States. 

198

ø(f) The Attorney General, upon the request of the Secretary, the 

Secretary of the Interior, or the Secretary of Agriculture, shall institute appropriate proceedings to enforce this section in the United 

States District Court for the District of Alaska.¿

* * * * * * *

SECTION 1023 OF THE INTERMODAL SURFACE 

TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 1991

SEC. 1023. GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RESTRICTION. 

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(h) OVER-THE-ROAD BUSES AND PUBLIC TRANSIT VEHICLES.— (1) TEMPORARY EXEMPTION.—The second sentence of section 

127 of title 23, United States Code, relating to axle weight limitations for vehicles using the Dwight D. Eisenhower System 

of Interstate and Defense Highways, shall not apply, for the 

period beginning on October 6, 1992, and ending on October 1, 

2003, øto any vehicle which¿ to— (A) any over-the-road bus (as defined in section 301 of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12181)); 

or 

(B) any vehicle that is regularly and exclusively used as 

an intrastate public agency transit passenger bus. 

* * * * * * *

TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * *

SUBTITLE IV—INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION 

* * * * * * *

PART A—RAIL 

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 111—OPERATIONS 

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER II—CAR SERVICE 

* * * * * * *

§ 11123. Situations requiring immediate action to serve the 

public 

(a) When the Board determines that shortage of equipment, congestion of traffic, unauthorized cessation of operations, failure of existing commuter passenger transportation operations caused by a 

cessation of service by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation,

or other failure of traffic movement exists which creates an emergency situation of such magnitude as to have substantial adverse 

199

effects on shippers, or on rail service in a region of the United 

States, or that a rail carrier providing transportation subject to the 

jurisdiction of the Board under this part cannot transport the traffic offered to it in a manner that properly serves the public, the 

Board may, to promote commerce and service to the public, for a 

period not to exceed 30 days— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) prescribe temporary through routes; øor¿

(4) give directions for—

(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) movement of traffic under permitsø.¿; or

(5) in the case of a failure of existing freight or commuter rail 

passenger transportation operations caused by a cessation of 

service by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, direct 

the continuation of the operations and dispatching, maintenance, and other necessary infrastructure functions related to 

the operations.

(b)(1)***

* * * * * * *

(3) øWhen¿ (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), when a 

rail carrier is directed under this section to operate the lines of another rail carrier due to that carrier’s cessation of operations, compensation for the directed operations shall derive only from revenues generated by the directed operations. 

(B) In the case of a failure of existing freight or commuter rail 

passenger transportation operations caused by a cessation of service 

by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, the Board may 

provide funding, to the extent provided in advance in appropriations acts, to support activities directed under subsection (a), including the payment of increased insurance premiums. The Board may 

order complete indemnification against any and all claims associated with the provision of service to which the directed rail carrier 

may be exposed.

* * * * * * *

(e) For purposes of this section, the National Railroad Passenger 

Corporation and any entity providing commuter rail passenger 

transportation shall be considered rail carriers subject to the 

Board’s jurisdiction. 

(f) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘commuter rail passenger 

transportation’’ has the meaning given that term in section 

24102(4).

* * * * * * *

SUBTITLE V—RAIL PROGRAMS 

* * * * * * *

PART C—PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION 

* * * * * * *

200

CHAPTER 243—AMTRAK 

* * * * * * *

§ 24301. Status and applicable laws 

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) APPLICATION OF SUBTITLE IV.—Subtitle IV of this title shall 

not apply to Amtrak, except for sections 11123, 11301, 11322(a), 

11502, and 11706. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, Amtrak shall continue to be considered an employer under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, and the Railroad Retirement Tax Act. 

* * * * * * *

SUBTITLE VII—AVIATION PROGRAMS 

* * * * * * *

PART A—AIR COMMERCE AND SAFETY 

* * * * * * *

SUBPART III—SAFETY 

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 449—SECURITY 

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER I—REQUIREMENTS 

* * * * * * *

§ 44920. Security screening opt-out program 

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) SUPERVISION OF SCREENED PERSONNEL.—The Under Secretary shall provide Federal Government supervisors to oversee all 

screening at each airport at which screening services are provided 

under this section and provide øFederal Government¿ law enforcement officers at the airport pursuant to this chapter. 

* * * * * * *

AIR TRANSPORTATION SAFETY AND SYSTEM 

STABILIZATION ACT 

* * * * * * *

TITLE IV—VICTIM COMPENSATION 

* * * * * * *

SEC. 402. DEFINITIONS. 

In this title, the following definitions apply: 

201

ø(1) AIR CARRIER.—The term ‘‘air carrier’’ means a citizen of 

the United States undertaking by any means, directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation and includes employees 

and agents of such citizen. The term ‘‘air carrier’’ does not include a person, other than an air carrier, engaged in the business of providing air transportation security.¿

(1) AIR CARRIER.—The term ‘‘air carrier’’ means a citizen of 

the United States undertaking by any means, directly or indirectly, to provide air transportation and includes employees and 

agents (including persons engaged in the business of providing 

air transportation security and their affiliates) of such citizen. 

For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term ‘‘agent’’, as applied to persons engaged in the business of providing air transportation security, shall only include persons that have contracted directly with the Federal Aviation Administration and 

commenced services no later than February 17, 2002, to provide 

such security, and had not been debarred for any period within 

6 months from that date.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 408. LIMITATION ON AIR CARRIER LIABILITY. 

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) EXCLUSION.—Nothing in this section shall in any way limit 

any liability of any person who is a knowing participant in any conspiracy to hijack any aircraft or commit any terrorist act. Subsections (a) and (b) do not apply to civil actions to recover collateral 

source obligations. øNothing in this section shall in any way limit 

any liability of any person who is engaged in the business of providing air transportation security and who is not an airline or airport sponsor or director, officer, or employee of an airline or airport 

sponsor.¿

* * * * * * *

SECTION 110 OF THE AVIATION AND TRANSPORTATION 

SECURITY ACT 

SEC. 110. SCREENING. 

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) DEADLINE FOR DEPLOYMENT OF FEDERAL SCREENERS.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary of Transportation for 

Security shall deploy at all airports in the United States where 

screening is required under section 44901 of title 49, United 

States Code, a sufficient number of Federal screeners, Federal 

Security Managers, Federal security personnel, and øFederal¿

law enforcement officers to conduct the screening of all passengers and property under section 44901 of such title at such 

airports. 

* * * * * * *

202

TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE 

* * * * * * *

SUBTITLE IV—INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION 

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 137—RATES AND THROUGH ROUTES 

* * * * * * *

§ 13703. Certain collective activities; exemption from antitrust laws 

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(d) LIMITATION.—The Board shall not take any action that 

would permit the establishment of nationwide collective rate-making authority.¿

ø(e)¿ (d) EXISTING AGREEMENTS.— (1) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(f)¿ (e) LIMITATIONS ON STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(g)¿ (f) INDUSTRY STANDARD GUIDES.—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

ø(h)¿ (g) SINGLE LINE RATE DEFINED.—In this section, the term 

‘‘single line rate’’ means a rate, charge, or allowance proposed by 

a single motor carrier that is applicable only over its line and for 

which the transportation can be provided by that carrier. 

* * * * * * *

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the following statements are submitted 

describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which 

directly or indirectly change the application of existing law. 

The bill provides that appropriations shall remain available for 

more than one year for a number of programs for which the basic 

authorizing legislation does not explicitly authorize such extended 

availability. 

The bill includes limitations on official entertainment, reception 

and representation expenses for the Secretary of Transportation 

and the National Transportation Safety Board. Similar provisions 

have appeared in many previous appropriations Acts. 

The bill includes a number of limitations on the purchase of 

automobiles, motorcycles, or office furnishings. Similar limitations 

have appeared in many previous appropriations Acts. 

Language is included in several instances permitting certain 

funds to be credited to the appropriations recommended. 

203

Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Salaries and 

expenses’’ which would allow crediting the account with up to 

$2,500,000 in user fees. 

Language is included under the Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Salaries 

and expenses’’ limiting the use of funds available for the position 

of Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs. 

Language is included that limits operating costs and capital outlays of the Transportation Administrative Service Center of the Department of Transportation and limits special assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any program, project or activity 

funded in this Act to only those assessments or reimbursable agreements that are presented to and approved by the House and Senate 

Appropriations Committees. 

Language is included under the Transportation Security Administration, ‘‘Aviation security’’ which would allow crediting the account with security service fees, estimated at not more than 

$1,712,726,000. 

Language is included under the Transportation Security Administration, ‘‘Aviation security’’ limiting the full-time staffing level to 

45,000. 

Language is included under the Transportation Security Administration, ‘‘Aviation security’’ requiring funds spent on TSA’s 

Credentialing Project to include pilot projects at locations on both 

the East and West Coasts and requiring that those projects should 

include a variety of technologies. 

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ‘‘Operating expenses’’ which specifies that none of the funds appropriated shall 

be available for pay or administrative expenses in connection with 

shipping commissioners. 

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ‘‘Operating expenses’’ that limits the use of funds for yacht documentation to the 

amount of fees collected from yacht owners. 

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ‘‘Operating expenses’’ that limits the funds spent for increased staffing, training, 

revising of policies and modernizing equipment. 

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ‘‘Operating expenses’’ that instructs the Inspector General to report to the House 

and Senate Appropriations Committee on the above funding. 

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ‘‘Acquisition, construction, and improvements’’ that credits funds from the disposal 

of surplus real property by sale or lease. 

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ‘‘Acquisition, construction, and improvements’’ requiring the Secretary to submit to 

Congress a comprehensive capital investment plan for the Coast 

Guard with the submission of their fiscal year 2004 budget. 

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ‘‘Acquisition construction, and improvements’’ requiring the OMB director to submit to the Congress the budget request for certain subheadings of 

the IDS integration contract. 

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ‘‘Alteration of 

bridges’’ requiring that certain projects must use steel, iron, and 

manufactured products produced only in the United States. 

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ‘‘Research, development, test, and evaluation’’ that credits funds received from state 

204

and local governments and other entities for expenses incurred for 

research, development, testing, and evaluation. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, ‘‘Operations’’ limiting funds for certain aviation program activities. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, ‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits funds to plan, finalize, or implement 

any regulation that would promulgate new aviation user fees not 

specifically authorized by law after the date of enactment of this 

Act. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, ‘‘Operations’’ that credits funds received from States, counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, other public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred in the provision of agency services. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, ‘‘Operations’’ that provides $6,000,000 for the contract tower costsharing program. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, ‘‘Operations’’ permitting the use of funds to enter into a grant 

agreement with a nonprofit standard-setting organization to develop aviation safety standards. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, ‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits the use of funds for new applicants of 

the second career training program. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, ‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits the use of funds for Sunday premium 

pay unless an employee actually performed work during the time 

corresponding to the premium pay. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, ‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits funds from being used to operate a 

manned auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous United 

States. 

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration, ‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits funds for conducting and coordinating 

activities on aeronautical charting and cartography through the 

Transportation Administrative Service Center. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ that allows certain funds received for 

expenses incurred in the establishment and modernization of air 

navigation facilities to be credited to the account. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ that requires the Secretary of Transportation to transmit a comprehensive capital investment plan for the 

Federal Aviation Administration. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Research, engineering, and development’’ that allows certain funds 

received for expenses incurred in research, engineering and development to be credited to the account. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that limits funds available for the planning or execution of programs with delegations in excess of 

$3,400,000,000. 

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’ that provides not more than 

$62,820,000 for administration. 

205

The bill includes limitations on administrative expenses of the 

Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier 

Safety Administration. The bill also includes a limitation on transportation research of the Federal Highway Administration. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Operations and research’’ prohibiting the planning or 

implementation of any rulemaking on labeling passenger car tires 

for low rolling resistance. 

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ limiting obligations 

for certain safety grant programs. 

Language is included under the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ prohibiting the use 

of funds for construction, rehabilitation or remodeling costs or for 

office furniture for state, local, or private buildings. 

Language is included under the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ limiting the 

amount of funds available for technical assistance to the states 

under section 410. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, ‘‘Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program’’ authorizing 

the Secretary to issue fund anticipation notes necessary to pay obligations under sections 511 through 513 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, ‘‘Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program’’ that prohibits 

new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments using federal 

funds for credit risk premium under section 502 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act. 

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, ‘‘Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation’’ that provides quarterly apportionment for capital funding and requires 

non-federal entities to provide payments on lines that have a greater than $200 passenger loss based on procedures developed by the 

Secretary of Transportation. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, ‘‘Administrative expenses’’ that reimburses $2,000,000 to the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General for costs associated 

with the audit and review of new fixed guideway systems. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, ‘‘Administrative expenses’’ that allows funds to remain available until 

expended for the National transit database. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, ‘‘Administrative expenses’’ that the Secretary of Transportation will 

transmit to Congress the annual report on new starts. 

Language is included under the Federal Transit Administration, 

‘‘Formula grants’’ reducing funds for each day that the annual report on new starts is not submitted to Congress. 

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 

‘‘Formula grants’’ that transfers $50,000,000 to be transferred to 

‘‘Federal Transit Administration, Capital investment grants’’. 

Language is included under Research and Special Programs Administration, ‘‘Research and special programs’’ which would allow 

up to $1,200,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) to be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as offsetting receipts. 

206

Language is included under Research and Special Programs Administration, ‘‘Research and special programs’’ that credits certain 

funds received for expenses incurred for training and other activities. 

Language is included under Research and Special Programs Administration, ‘‘Emergency preparedness grants’’ specifying the Secretary of Transportation or his designee may obligate funds provided under this head. 

Language is included under Office of Inspector General, ‘‘Salaries 

and expenses’’ that provides the Inspector General with all necessary authority to investigate allegations of fraud by any person 

or entity that is subject to regulation by the Department of Transportation. 

Language is also included under Office of Inspector General, ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ that authorizes the office of Inspector General to investigate unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods 

of competition by domestic and foreign air carriers and ticket 

agents. 

Language is included under Surface Transportation Board, ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ allowing the collection of $1,000,000 in fees established by the Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board; 

and providing that the sum appropriated from the general fund 

shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis as such fees are received. 

Language is included under Architectural and Transportation 

Barriers Compliance Board, ‘‘Salaries and expenses’’ that provides 

that funds received for publications and training may be credited 

to the appropriation. 

The bill contains a number of general provisions that place limitations or funding prohibitions on the use of funds in the bill and 

which might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing 

the application of existing law. 

The bill contains a number of general provisions that allow for 

the redistribution of previously appropriated funds. 

Section 304 prohibits political and Presidential appointees in the 

Department of Transportation and independent agencies funded in 

this Act from being assigned on temporary detail outside the Department or such independent agency. 

Section 312 allows airports to transfer to the Federal Aviation 

Administration instrument landing systems which conform to FAA 

specifications and the purchase of such equipment was assisted by 

a federal airport aid program. 

Section 316 provides that funds received for training from States, 

counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and private 

sources by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit 

Administration, and Federal Railroad Administration to be credited 

to each respective agency except for State rail safety inspectors 

participating in training pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20105. 

Section 317 allows funds received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of data products to be credited to the 

Federal-aid highways account for the purpose of reimbursing the 

Bureau for such expenses. 

Section 319 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to allow 

issuers to redeem or repurchase preferred stock sold to the Department of Transportation. 

207

Section 320 prohibits funds in this Act unless the Secretary of 

Transportation notifies the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than three full business days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by the department 

or its modal administrations. 

Section 325 allows States to use funds provided in this Act under 

section 402 of title 23, United States Code, to produce and place 

highway safety public service messages in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary of Transportation, and requires such 

States to submit a report describing and assessing the effectiveness 

of the messages. It also allows States to use section 157 and 163 

grants to purchase advertising to be used during seat belt and alcohol mobilizations and permits the Administrator to evaluate the effectiveness of purchased advertising on seat belt and alcohol-impaired driving programs. 

Section 327 prohibits funds in this Act from being used to issue, 

implement, or enforce a regulation that diminishes or revokes an 

exemption authorized under 345 of the National Highway System 

Designation Act of 1995.

Section 329 requires payments into the Department of Defense 

Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund to come from funds in 

Coast Guard, ‘‘Operating expense’’. 

Section 331 allows changes to be made to the table in section 

1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century with 

regard to plans in Louisiana, Pennsylvania, New York, and Texas; 

allows changes to be made to section 3030(d)(3) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105–78) with regard 

to plans in Alaska; allows changes to be made under ‘‘Surface 

Transportation Projects’’ (P.L. 103–331) with regard to California; 

allows changes to be made under ‘‘Surface Transportation Projects’’

(P.L. 103–331) with regard to Texas; and includes the city of Norman, OK to be considered as part of the Oklahoma City Transportation Management Area. 

Section 334 permits over-the-road buses to be included under the 

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. 

Section 336 permits continued operation of freight and commuter 

rail services if a cessation of service by the National Railroad Corporation should occur. 

Section 338 amends the Air Transportation Safety and System 

Stabilization Act (49 U.S.C. 40101 note) by inserting into section 

402 the definition of the term ‘‘air carrier.’’

Section 342 requires that any explosive detection system purchase must be made by the Under Secretary of Transportation for 

Security. 

Section 343 amends language in the Aviation and Transportation 

Security Act, so as to only require the use of law enforcement officers at airports, instead of designating the use of federal officers. 

Section 344 prohibits funds in this Act from terminating or limiting restrictions imposed under FAA Notices to Airmen FDC 2/

0199, issued on September 27, 2002. 

Section 345 prohibits the procurement of Coast Guard ships, including main diesel engines, unless such procurement is in compliance with the Buy American Act, 41 U.S.C. 10(a)–10(d). The ComVerDate 0ct 02 2002 07:19 Oct 08, 2002 Jkt 082170 PO 00000 Frm 00207 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR722.XXX HR722
208

mittee does not seek to amend the Act to apply content standards 

to individual components of vessels. 

Section 346 amends section 13703, of title 49, United States 

Code, by allowing the STB to approve applications from truck rate 

bureaus seeking to publish national rates. 

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table lists the appropriations in 

the accompanying bill that are not authorized by law:

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW 

[In thousands of dollars] 

Agency and Appropriation Last year of authorization 

Authorization 

level 

Appropriations in 

last year of authorization 

Appropriations 

recommended in 

this bill 

Coast Guard: 

Operating Expenses ............................................... 1999 1 3,006,200 3,013,506 4,305,456

Acquisition, Construction and Improvement ........ 1999 2 1,140,600 625,465 725,000

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ..... 1999 18,300 17,000 21,000

Environmental Compliance and Restoration ........ 1999 26,000 21,000 17,000

Federal Aviation Administration: 

Research, Engineering and Development ............. 2002 249,000 195,000 138,000

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: 

Operations & Research ......................................... 2001 116,976 126,445 131,433

Federal Railroad Administration: 

Safety and Operations 3 Railroad Safety .............. 1998 90,739 57,050 117,363

Grants to Amtrak—Capital .................................. 2002 955,000 4 826,476 762,476

Research & Special Programs Administration: 

Pipeline Safety ...................................................... 2000 37,718 30,447 58,697

Hazardous Materials ............................................. 1997 19,670 15,472 22,998

Surface Transportation Board: 

Salaries and Expenses .......................................... 1998 12,000 13,850 19,450

1 Includes $151.5 million authorized in the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act through FY 2001. 

2 Includes $630.3 million authorized in the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act through FY 1999. 

3Was formerly the Office of the Administrator and Railroad Safety Accounts. The Office of the Administrator had general authority under 49 

U.S.C. Section 103, however, no specific amount was authorized. 4 Includes $205,000,000 is FY 2002 emergency supplemental funding. 

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section 

308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control 

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, which requires that 

the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the 

reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal 

year from the Committee’s section 302(a) allocation. This information follows:

[In millions of dollars] 

Full committee data 

302(b) allocation This bill 

Budget

authority Outlays Budgetauthority Outlays 

Comparison with Budget Resolution: 

Discretionary 1 ....................................................................... 19,411 60,369 19,413 62,358

Mandatory ............................................................................. 889 914 889 914

209

[In millions of dollars] 

Full committee data 

302(b) allocation This bill 

Budget

authority Outlays Budgetauthority Outlays 

Total 2 ............................................................................... 20,300 61,283 20,302 63,272 

1 Budget authority in this bill excludes $1,445,000 for the mass transit category. 

2 Prior to House consideration of the bill, the Committee intends to adjust the 302(b) allocations to eliminate any breach. 

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional 

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93– 344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections 

associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying 

bill as provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office:

In millions of dollars 

Budget authority .................................................................................... 21,727

Outlays 1: 

2003 ................................................................................................. 24,313

2004 ................................................................................................. 19,482

2005 ................................................................................................. 7,820

2006 ................................................................................................. 3,531

2007 and future years .................................................................... 4,160

1 Excludes outlays from prior year budget authority.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional 

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–

344), as amended, the Congressional Budget Office has provided 

the following estimates of new budget authority and outlays provided by the accompanying bill for financial assistance to state and 

local governments:

In millions of dollars 

Budget Authority ................................................................................... 1,618

Fiscal year 2003 outlays ........................................................................ 8,795

RECISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the 

rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill:

Federal Highway Administration ......................................................... $5,609,337.46

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules 

of the House of Representatives, the results of each rollcall vote on 

an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names 

of those voting for and those voting against, are printed below: 

210

ROLLCALL NO. 1

Date: September 26, 2002. 

Measure: Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Bill, FY 2003. 

Motion by: Mr. Sabo. 

Description of motion: To raise funding for the National Railroad 

Passenger Corporation from $762,476,000 to $1,200,000,000 and 

change the distribution of those funds. 

Results: Rejected 25 yeas to 35 nays. 

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay

Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt 

Mr. Clyburn Mr. Bonilla 

Mr. Cramer Mr. Cunningham 

Ms. DeLauro Mr. DeLay 

Mr. Dicks Mr. Doolittle 

Mr. Edwards Mrs. Emerson 

Mr. Fattah Mr. Frelinghuysen 

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Goode 

Mr. Hoyer Ms. Granger 

Mr. Jackson Mr. Hobson 

Mr. Kennedy Mr. Istook 

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Kingston 

Mrs. Lowey Mr. Knollenberg 

Mr. Meek Mr. Kolbe 

Mr. Moran Mr. LaHood 

Mr. Obey Mr. Latham 

Mr. Olver Mr. Lewis 

Mr. Pastor Mr. Miller 

Ms. Pelosi Mr. Nethercutt 

Mr. Price Mrs. Northup 

Mr. Rothman Mr. Peterson 

Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Regula 

Mr. Sabo Mr. Rogers 

Mr. Serrano Mr. Sherwood 

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Skeen 

Mr. Sununu 

Mr. Sweeney 

Mr. Taylor 

Mr. Tiahrt 

Mr. Vitter 

Mr. Walsh 

Mr. Wamp 

Mr. Wicker 

Mr. Wolf 

Mr. Young

211

ROLLCALL NO. 2

Date: October 1, 2002. 

Measure: Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Bill, FY 2003. 

Motion by: Mr. Edwards. 

Description of motion: To increase the obligation limitation under 

‘‘Federal-aid highways’’ from $27,653,143,000 to $31,800,000,000. 

Results: Rejected 26 yeas to 29 nays. 

Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay 

Mr. Boyd Mr. Aderholt 

Mr. Cramer Mr. Bonilla 

Ms. DeLauro Mr. Callahan 

Mr. Dicks Mr. Cunningham 

Mr. Edwards Mr. Doolittle 

Mr. Farr Mrs. Emerson 

Mr. Hinchey Mr. Frelinghuysen 

Mr. Hoyer Mr. Goode 

Mr. Jackson Mr. Granger 

Ms. Kaptur Mr. Hobson 

Mr. Kennedy Mr. Istook 

Ms. Kilpatrick Mr. Kingston 

Mrs. Meek Mr. Knollenberg 

Mr. Mollohan Mr. Kolbe 

Mr. Moran Mr. Lewis 

Mr. Murtha Mr. Miller 

Mr. Obey Mr. Nethercutt 

Mr. Olver Mr. Regula 

Mr. Pastor Mr. Rogers 

Ms. Pelosi Mr. Sherwood 

Mr. Price Mr. Skeen 

Mr. Rothman Mr. Sweeney 

Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Tiahrt 

Mr. Sabo Mr. Vitter 

Mr. Serrano Mr. Walsh 

Mr. Visclosky Mr. Wamp 

Mr. Wicker 

Mr. Wolf 

Mr. Young

212


Insert offset folio 212 here 82170.002
213


Insert offset folio 213 here 82170.003
214


Insert offset folio 214 here 82170.004
215


Insert offset folio 215 here 82170.005
216


Insert offset folio 216 here 82170.006
217


Insert offset folio 217 here 82170.007
218


Insert offset folio 218 here 82170.008
219


Insert offset folio 219 here 82170.009
220


Insert offset folio 220 here 82170.010
221


Insert offset folio 221 here 82170.011
222


Insert offset folio 222 here 82170.012
223


Insert offset folio 223 here 82170.013
224


Insert offset folio 224 here 82170.014
225


Insert offset folio 225 here 82170.015
226


Insert offset folio 226 here 82170.016
227


Insert offset folio 227 here 82170.017
(228)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. DAVID R. OBEY AND HON. 

MARTIN OLAV SABO 

The creation of the Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA), requiring billions of general taxpayer dollars, has put a 

strain on funding for traditional transportation infrastructure programs. The Amtrak funding proposed in the bill is a prime example 

of this strain. Both Amtrak and TSA should be adequately funded. 

Unfortunately, Amtrak is shortchanged. 

Amtrak is funded at $762 million—$438 million, or 36%, less 

than the $1.2 billion both Amtrak and the DOT Inspector General 

say that Amtrak needs in fiscal year 2003. Amtrak President David 

Gunn has said ‘‘. . . that should $762 million be the final amount 

enacted. Amtrak will run out of money early in 2003, and we will 

again be faced with another shutdown crisis.’’

The DOT Inspector General has written. ‘‘Without changes to the 

structure of the system or additional capital funding from other 

sources, the reliability of Amtrak service in 2003 is likely at risk, 

and this risk will rise as the level of Federal or other funding declines [below the $1.2 billion]. 

In 2002, Amtrak’s appropriations totaled $831 million from the 

Federal Government (the regular appropriation of $521 million, a 

$100 million loan from DOT that must be paid back, and $205 million and $5 million in the emergency supplemental). Amtrak also 

had use of $313 million, appropriated in 2001, but not available 

until 2002. 

The funding that is provided to Amtrak in 2003 in the committee 

bill is 8% less than what was appropriated in 2002 and 25% less 

than what was available to Amtrak from the Federal government 

in 2002. And Amtrak’s maintenance needs have grown. 

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has not shown leadership on Amtrak. The Administration has asked for meaningful reforms for Amtrak, but has yet to submit any specific legislative 

proposals to the Congress. The President’s appointees in the Department of Transportation have also admitted that if the President’s Budget request of $521 million were enacted Amtrak would 

cease to exist. 

At the $762 million funding level contained in the committee bill, 

the Congress will be back next February needing to provide more 

funding to Amtrak to get it through the year, just as it did last 

July when the emergency supplemental was enacted. 

A manager’s amendment adopted in full committee deleted a provision in the bill that would have provided no federal funding, beginning in July, to all routes where the per passenger subsidy is 

over $200. Instead, the bill now caps the federal funding that can 

be provided for long distance trains at $150 million. As the old saying goes, a hose of another color is still a horse. 

229

The fact is that Amtrak cannot run all existing long distance 

trains on $150 million. So some, if not all, long distance trains will 

have to be discontinued. Some have estimated that this will impact 

13 of the 18 long distance Amtrak trains, including: 

The Sunset Limited from Orlando to Los Angeles via Jacksonville, Tallahassee, Pensacola, Mobile, New Orleans, Houston, San Antonio and Tucson; 

The Pennsylvania from Philadelphia to Chicago via Harrisburg, Cleveland, Toledo, and Pittsburgh; 

The Texas Eagle from Chicago to Los Angeles via Springfield, St. Louis, Little Rock, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, and 

Tucson; 

The Three Rivers from New York to Chicago via Philadelphia, Harrisburg, and Pittsburgh; 

The Southwest Chief from Chicago to Los Angeles via Kansas 

City, Topeka, Albuquerque, and Flagstaff; 

The Kentucky Cardinal from Chicago to Louisville via Indianapolis; 

The Cardinal from Washington to Chicago via Charleston, 

WV, Cincinnati, and Indianapolis; 

The Capitol Limited from Washington to Chicago via Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Toledo; 

The California Zephyr from Chicago to Oakland via Omaha, 

Lincoln, Denver, Salt Lake City, Reno, and Sacramento; 

The Lake Shore Limited from New York to Chicago via Albany, Syracuse, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Toledo; 

The Crescent from New York to New Orelans via Philadelphia, Wilmington, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Greensboro, 

Charlotte, Greenville, Atlanta, and Birmingham; 

The Silver Palm from New York to Miami via Philadelphia, 

Wilmington, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Richmond, Charleston, SC, Savannah, Jacksonville, Tampa, and Ft. Lauderdale; 

and

The City of New Orleans from Chicago to New Orleans via 

Memphis. 

It is also a fact that a $762 million funding level could negatively 

impact other Amtrak service. Amtrak’s maintenance backlog will 

grow, more trains will be put out of service and scheduled service 

will be delayed or canceled. 

This is not the kind of train service that the American people expect and deserve, and such a prospect flies in the face of the ridership gains that Amtrak has made over the past five years. 

It also ignores the critical role that Amtrak played following the 

September 11 attacks. After September 11, travelers turned to Amtrak as an alternative to flying. If Amtrak had not existed on September 11, just think of the transportation nightmare we would 

have experienced. Further, many of the travelers on the Northeast 

Corridor who used Amtrak after September 11 continue to do so. 

Congress is now faced with the decision of whether to fund Amtrak properly or eliminate it. It’s really as simple as that. We think 

that the choice is clear: Amtrak should be funded at $1.2 billion.

DAVID OBEY. 

MARTIN O. SABO. 

(230)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE CHET EDWARDS 

The Administration’s 2003 budget request for highways totaled 

$23.2 billion, as $8.6 billion reduction from 2002. This committee 

was able to raise the guaranteed funding level—the budget floor, 

not the budget limit—for highways to $27.7 billion in the supplemental by waiving the automatic funding adjustment in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) called ‘‘revenue 

aligned budget authority.’’ However, the committee voted against 

an amendment I offered to raise 2003 highway funding to the 2002 

level of $31.8 billion. 

This $4.1 billion highway funding reduction will result in job loss 

and increased congestion. It will affect the quality of life of our people and the profitability of our businesses. 

In years like this one, when the economy is troubled, we should 

be debating how the federal government can spur economic growth 

and put more people to work. The Republicans would do this all 

with tax cuts. However, since the days of Roosevelt, and even before, construction programs have been excellent vehicles for job creation. In fact, the states and the highway construction industry estimate that for every $1 billion put into highway construction and 

reconstruction, over 47,500 jobs are created. 

Not continuing highway funding at the fiscal 2002 level, will result in the loss of almost 200,000 jobs over a seven-year period, as 

is seen in the table that follows. It will also hamper improvements 

to the conditions of our nation’s highways and bridges; 21% of the 

bridges on our National Highway System are below standard. It 

will also increase highway congestion, where now in urban areas 

travelers spend an average of 32 hours a year, or a total of 4 working days, in traffic. 

Highway congestion not only affects our personal lives, it affects 

our businesses by making products more expensive. The Texas 

Transportation Institute found that traffic congestion costs America 

$75 billion annually in wasted time and fuel. Investment in our 

highway infrastructure is also an investment in safety of our roads, 

on which 42,000 people die annually in traffic accidents. 

It is unfortunate the Committee defeated the amendment to 

maintain highway funding at the 2002 level to meet the needs of 

our nation’s highway system. This was an opportunity missed, and 

the American people will pay the price. 

CHET EDWARDS.

231


Insert offset folio 232 here 82170.018