73–279

107TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 1st Session 107–108

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2002

JUNE 22, 2001.—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

REPORT

together with

ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[To accompany H.R. 2299]

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, 2002.

INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

Page number

Bill Report

Narrative summary of Committee action ................................................. .... 2

Program, project, and activity ................................................................... .... 7

Title I—Department of Transportation:

Office of the Secretary ........................................................................ 2 8

Coast Guard ......................................................................................... 4 15

Federal Aviation Administration ....................................................... 9 31

Federal Highway Administration ...................................................... 15 61

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration .................................. 17 81

Federal Railroad Administration ....................................................... 20 94

Federal Transit Administration ......................................................... 22 104

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ............................ 18 87

Office of Inspector General ................................................................. 34 176

Research and Special Programs Administration .............................. 32 171

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation ......................... 31 170

Surface Transportation Board ........................................................... 35 177

Title II—Related Agencies:

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board ....... 35 178

National Transportation Safety Board .............................................. 36 179

2

Page number

Bill Report

Title III—General Provisions .................................................................... 36 180

House Report Requirements:

Appropriations not authorized by law ............................................... .... 190

Changes in existing law ..................................................................... .... 184

Comparison with budget resolution ................................................... .... 190

Constitutional authority ..................................................................... .... 182

Financial assistance to state and local governments ....................... .... 191

Five-year projections of outlays ......................................................... .... 191

General performance goals and objectives ........................................ .... 183

Ramseyer ............................................................................................. .... 184

Rescissions ........................................................................................... .... 191

Transfers of funds ............................................................................... .... 183

Tabular summary of the bill ..................................................................... .... 194

SUMMARY AND MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BILL

The accompanying bill would provide $17,118,121,000 in new

budget (obligational) authority for the programs of the Department

of Transportation and related agencies, $1,516,000 more than the

$17,116,605,000 requested in the budget. In total, the bill includes

obligational authority (new budget authority, guaranteed obligations contained in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA–21) and the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and

Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR–21), limitations on obligations, and exempt obligations) of $59,080,921,000. This is

$1,181,468,000 more than the comparable fiscal year 2001 enacted

level and $109,515,000 more than the budget request.

Selected major recommendations in the accompanying bill are:

(1) An appropriation of $13,275,481,000 for the Federal Aviation Administration, consistent with provisions of AIR–21, an

increase of $687,481,000 above fiscal year 2001;

(2) A limitation of $3,300,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, as required by provisions of AIR–21, and an increase of

$100,000,000 above the fiscal year 2001 level and the same as

the budget request;

(3) An appropriation of $3,382,588,000 for operating expenses of the Coast Guard, a 6 percent increase over last year’s

level including $619,232,000 for drug interdiction activities;

(4) An appropriation of $521,476,000 for grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), to cover capital expenses;

(5) A total of $85,319,000 for the office of the secretary,

$1,774,000 below the 2001 enacted level and the budget request;

(6) Highway program obligation limitations of

$31,716,797,000, an increase of $2,054,991,000 over fiscal year

2001;

(7) Transit program obligations of $5,397,800,000, consistent

with provisions of TEA–21, and $381,200,000 over fiscal year

2001; and

(8) A total of $298,203,000 for the Federal Motor Carrier

Safety Administration, including $205,896,000 for the national

motor carrier safety program, an increase of $29,600,000 above

fiscal year 2001.

3

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 1990, 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 Committees from reducing

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, and

Amtrak. As a result of these Acts, the majority of budgetary resources addressed by this bill are ‘‘guaranteed’’ by federal legislation and/or protected by unprecedented legislated 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 expanding use of spending

guarantees to ‘‘wall-off’’ parts of the discretionary budget for particular constituencies will cause both transportation and non-transportation programs 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 noncovered 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-related operations in the FAA, Coast Guard, and FRA to

scramble for the remaining crumbs.

PRIORITIES OF THE BILL

This year, the Committee has focused more directly on certain

problems which reduce both the management effectiveness of the

department and the delivery of critical transportation services to

the public. Addressing these problems are top priorities of the recommended bill, and will involve sustained commitment over the

coming years. The Committee’s priorities for the bill this year include: (1) improvement in accountability and performance management within the department; (2) improvement in oversight of large

transportation infrastructure projects; (3) greater leveraging of federal funding for transit projects; and (4) reducing aviation delays

and improving access to the nation’s aviation system. Each of these

priorities is discussed more fully below:

IMPROVING ACCOUNTABILITY AND PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

For many years, the Committee has advocated stronger accountability for performance within the department. With the passage of

4

the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA), agencies were

required, for the first time, to establish specific and measurable

performance goals. However, GPRA was silent on how to effectuate

change and compel stronger performance based on that information. In addition, reports of the U.S. General Accounting Office, the

National Transportation Safety Board, and the DOT Inspector General provide valuable information on agency performance, and

agency employee surveys illuminate specific problem areas which

are not readily apparent to the outside observer. The Committee

believes that the annual appropriations process must use performance information to ensure the taxpayers’ dollars are spent wisely

and distributed to the highest-performing programs. This year, the

Committee has reviewed agency performance plans and matched

the results to the provision of executive bonuses and requests for

additional budgetary resources. In too many cases, the Committee

has discovered little or no linkage between the achievement of

goals and the provision of bonuses to the executives leading those

organizations. The Committee will not allow this situation to continue. The bill makes adjustments in two appropriations to reduce

bonuses next year for under-performing organizations. In other

cases, requests for additional staffing or contract resources have

been denied until those organizations can show clear progress in

meeting their goals. Executive bonuses, discretionary travel funds,

and support staff are not entitlements. High-performing organizations should be rewarded with such benefits and incentives. And

low-performing organizations should have them denied, to stimulate stronger achievement. This is the essence of accountability,

and the Committee will continue to insist upon it.

IMPROVEMENT IN OVERSIGHT OF MAJOR TRANSPORTATION

INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS

Enactment of TEA–21 and AIR–21 authorizing legislation, combined with impending initiation of the Coast Guard’s ‘‘deepwater’’ program, has resulted in an infusion of funding for transportation

infrastructure not seen since creation of the interstate highway

system. In addition, new flexible funding mechanisms such as state

infrastructure banks (SIBs) and Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loans complicate the oversight

process. The DOT Inspector General has warned that such rapid

increases in funding, if not properly controlled and overseen, will

create a climate where fraud and waste can grow. In response, the

department formed a special task force on the Central Artery highway project, and following that, a broader Task Force on Oversight

of Large Transportation Infrastructure Projects, to develop stronger

policy and more effective monitoring and oversight procedures. The

Committee believes that the recommendations of these task forces

are good first steps. However, the department must ensure that

agencies continuously follow through on those recommendations.

This will require the office of the secretary to effectively monitor

the status of those projects, and intervene quickly when action is

needed. The Committee notes that agencies do not always place a

high priority on contracts designed to oversee their activities. For

example, the Committee has had to add funding in fiscal year 2002

for project and financial management oversight contracts of major

new transit systems. Without this additional funding, FTA would

5

need to limit the number of projects that receive oversight or scale

back the level of oversight currently being provided. Either of these

options may expose FTA and the Federal Government to criticism

if one or more projects not fully monitored develops serious problems. Further, FAA and Coast Guard have been negligent in requesting funds for Defense Contract Audit Agency contract audits.

In this bill, the Committee is providing additional funding and direction for oversight of infrastructure ‘‘mega-projects’’, and providing stronger direction to ensure requests for contract audits are

made. The Committee will hold DOT accountable for general oversight in future years.

GREATER LEVERAGING OF FEDERAL TRANSIT FUNDS

Due to the number of full funding grant agreements (FFGAs)

signed over the past few years, there is very little funding available

for other new start transit projects, regardless of merit or need.

That is evident in this bill, where, with $126 million available for

non-FFGA funding, the Committee has been able to satisfy only 10

percent of total requests. These prior decisions, while beneficial to

a few communities, excessively restrict the ability of the annual appropriations process to satisfy new requirements for meritorious

projects, and to accommodate rising transit demand in the coming

years. While the Committee recognizes that existing law authorizes

a maximum federal contribution of 80 percent for transit new start

systems, the time has clearly come to encourage a lower federal

share for new projects not under construction, in order to provide

a more equitable distribution of funds among all communities desiring federal support. For this reason, the Committee intends a

greater leveraging of federal resources by providing, in this bill, a

higher percentage of requested funds to those projects where the

federal share of total estimated cost is 60 percent or below.

REDUCING AVIATION DELAYS AND IMPROVING ACCESS TO THE

NATION’S AVIATION SYSTEM

This year the Committee has focused on the terrible, and worsening, problem of airline delays and cancellations. Last year, one

out of every four flights in the United States was delayed, and the

average delay has now increased to over 50 minutes in length. To

make matters worse, consumer flight delays had already increased

42 percent over the 1995–1999 time period. The IG has reported on

the growing number of ‘‘chronically late’’ flights—those flights

which are hardly ever on time. And flight cancellations are just as

big a problem. The number of cancelled flights has increased sevenfold in the past five years.

The number of actual passengers inconvenienced by these delays

and cancellations is unknown. However, with load factors over 80

percent on many routes, and with a large majority of people being

funneled through a small number of hub airports for connecting

flights, it doesn’t take many delays or cancellations to disrupt the

plans of tens of thousands of people. Furthermore, because aircraft

are so full, it is becoming increasing difficult to rebook all passengers on the next available flight. So the delay experienced by

passengers is far greater than is even covered by the available statistics. That is why people are furious about airline travel today,

6

and that is why the Committee has become involved in trying to

find solutions.

The Committee held special hearings on March 15, 2001 and

May 3, 2001 on the aviation delay problem. Testimony was received

from senior administration officials, representatives of the aviation

industry and the air traffic controllers association, and university

professors. During those hearings, the Committee received specific

commitments from each witness detailing actions they would personally take to address the delay problem. At the Committee’s second hearing on May 3, 2001, progress and accomplishments were

reported in several areas. Much more remains to be done, and the

Committee will continue to monitor progress on these commitments. However, the Committee appreciates the good faith efforts

of these individuals to make a personal difference to help address

the problem.

There is no question that the delay problem must be attacked on

several fronts:

Procedural.—FAA needs to continue assigning a high priority to

making changes in its approved flight rules, separation standards,

airways, and procedures in ways which improve capacity without

sacrificing safety. Initiatives such as airspace redesign, reduced

vertical separation minima, and analysis of ‘‘choke points’’ will all

contribute greatly to squeezing additional capacity out of today’s infrastructure. These initiatives are all fully funded in the accompanying bill.

Redistribution of supply.—Analysis indicates that, in total, there

is no shortage of airport capacity in the United States. However,

the economics of airline hubbing creates incentives for airlines to

pack far too many aircraft in far too few airports in far too short

a time period. This high-pressure situation requires only a small

unplanned event—such as a thunderstorm—to throw the entire

system into chaos for the balance of the day. FAA’s recent development of capacity benchmarks demonstrates that airlines are, all too

often, scheduling more flights at peak hours than can take off

under even the most optimistic scenarios. The Committee encourages the Secretary of Transportation to work diligently with airlines to reduce overscheduling by dispersing flights to non-peak

hours and to underutilized airports. If voluntary actions are not

sufficient to address this problem, next year the Committee may

have to consider more directive measures.

Expansion of land-based capacity.—Most observers agree that

part of the solution, at least over the long term, is to construct additional runways and connecting taxiways. The Committee is supportive of these efforts, as well as activities to streamline the local,

state, and federal approval process for airport facility construction

(‘‘environmental streamlining’’), without subrogating environmental

requirements. The bill fully funds the authorized level for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which provides grants for such

construction projects at our nation’s airports.

Expansion of airway capacity.—If successfully developed and implemented, changes in air traffic control technology are expected to

allow airway capacity improvements of 5 to 10 percent in the coming years. In the main, these technologies, such as satellite navigation and automatic surveillance, are not in operation anywhere in

the world on the scale envisioned by the FAA. Further, the U.S.

7

aviation system is the safest in the world, and radical changes in

the use of technology must be approached cautiously. However, the

Committee is hopeful that capacity-enhancement programs currently being developed by FAA will, over time, add to airway system capacity and provide a measure of contribution to the delay

problem.

Analysis of data.—One of the most difficult to understand aspects of the delay problem is that it persists, in part, because government and industry have not agreed on how to measure the

problem. Until recently, there was not even a mutually-agreed

upon definition of what constituted a delay. Now, a departmental

working group is trying to better define and categorize delay causation. Until standard and consistent data—using mutually-agreed

upon definitions—is collected and analyzed, it will be easier to

avoid solutions than to find them. The Committee believes the first

step in this direction is to develop a common delay causation and

reporting methodology, which is the subject of an OST working

group headed by the deputy secretary. The Committee will monitor

this work to ensure a baseline of good data and sound reporting

practices are put into place so that action plans can be developed

and organizations held accountable for their portions of the problem.

TABULAR SUMMARY

A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year 2001

and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year 2002 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

2002. The Committee received testimony from officials of the executive branch, Members of Congress, university faculty officials of the

U.S. General Accounting Office, officials of state and local governments, and private citizens.

The bill recommendations for fiscal year 2002 have been developed after careful consideration of all the information available to

the Committee.

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

During fiscal year 2002, 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 Committees 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

8

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.

TITLE I

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ....................................................... $63,245,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... 69,500,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 67,726,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. +4,481,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ ¥1,774,000 1Does not reflect a reduction of $139,139 pursuant to section 1403 of P.L. 106–554.

The bill provides a total of $67,726,000 for the salaries and expenses of the various offices comprising the Office of the Secretary.

The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2001 program levels, the fiscal year 2002 program requests and the Committee’s recommendations:

Program Fiscal year 2001 enacted

Fiscal year 2002

request Recommended

Immediate office of the Secretary ............................................ $1,827,000 $1,989,000 $1,929,000

Immediate office of the Deputy Secretary ................................ 587,000 638,000 625,000

Office of General Counsel ......................................................... 9,972,000 13,355,000 11,654,000

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy ............................. 3,011,000 3,153,000 3,153,000

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs .................................................................... 7,289,000 7,650,000 7,650,000

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs ... 7,362,000 7,728,000 7,728,000

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs .... 2,150,000 2,282,000 2,282,000

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ............... 19,020,000 20,262,000 20,262,000

Office of Public Affairs ............................................................. 1,674,000 1,776,000 1,776,000

Executive Secretariat ................................................................ 1,181,000 1,241,000 1,241,000

Board of Contract appeals ....................................................... 496,000 523,000 523,000

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Businesses Utilization .... 1,192,000 1,251,000 1,251,000

Office of Intelligence and Security ........................................... 1,262,000 1,321,000 1,321,000

Office of the Chief Information Officer .................................... 6,222,000 6,331,000 6,331,000

Total ............................................................................. 63,245,000 69,500,000 67,726,000

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

Reduce requested increases for Secretary’s travel .............................. ¥$60,000

Reduce requested increases for Deputy Secretary’s travel ................. ¥13,000

Provide 5 new staff for Accessibility for all America consumer

rights issues ........................................................................................ ¥398,000

Provide 2 new staff for Accessibility for all America technical assistance and information ................................................................... ¥158,000

Deny one new staff for alternative dispute resolutions ...................... ¥170,000

Decrease General Counsel travel ......................................................... ¥72,000

Decrease new rental space requirements ............................................ ¥184,000

Hold contract services to a 10-percent growth rate ............................ ¥719,000

9

Secretary’s travel.—Travel of the Immediate Office of the Secretary has grown by 35 percent over the past five years. The budget requested an additional $80,000, a 44 percent increase, for travel

in 2002, which would bring the total travel expenses to $263,500;

however, the department could not justify why such a large increase was necessary. As a result, the Committee has provided the

Secretary with a smaller increase in travel expenses (+$20,000),

which would bring the total allowable travel expenses to $202,500

in fiscal year 2002.

Deputy Secretary’s travel.—Similarly, travel expenses for the

Deputy Secretary has increased by 638 percent from 1997 to 2001.

The budget requested an additional $20,000 for travel, or a 49 percent increase, for fiscal year 2002. The Committee has decreased

the requested amount for Deputy Secretary travel by $13,000. Even

with this reduction, the Deputy Secretary will have $47,000 for allowable travel expenses in fiscal year 2002.

Accessibility for all America.—The Office of General Counsel has

requested twenty new staff to address accessibility issues. The

Committee has provided nine new staff to work on the Accessibility

for all America initative and alternative dispute resolution activities instead of the 20 new staff requested (¥$556,000). Of this

total, the Committee has approved five new staff for consumer

rights issues, two new staff for technical assistance and information; one domestic aviation attorney; and one alternative dispute

resolution analyst. Funding for these new staff is provided for onehalf year because of the time to recruit qualified candidates and

place them into these positions. The Committee is aware that the

General Counsel’s office has at least seven vacancies for similar positions and expects these to be filled promptly to help reduce the

backlog in resolution of accessibility complaints.

Travel and rental space.—The Committee has reduced the General Counsel’s budget request for travel (¥$72,000) and rental

space (¥$184,000) because the Committee has approved less staff

than requested in fiscal year 2002. With this action, less funding

for these two activities is necessary.

Contract services.—The Committee has held contract services to

a 10 percent growth rate instead of the requested increase of over

700 percent requested (¥$719,000).

Pay raise.—Within the amounts provided, the Committee assumes a 4.6 percent pay raise instead of the 3.6 percent pay raise

requested in the budget. This is consistent with other sections of

the bill.

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.

The department is also directed to submit its fiscal year 2003

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 2002.

Staffing levels.—The offices comprising the offices of the secretary are directed not to fill any positions in fiscal year 2001 that

are currently vacant if such vacancies are proposed in this Act for

elimination in fiscal year 2002.

10

Assessments.—The Committee directs that assessments charged

by the office of the secretary to the modal administrations shall be

for administrative activities, not policy initiatives. The Committee

has seen violations of this direction in fiscal year 2001, and will not

tolerate further problems.

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 2002 is 105 personnel, which is one more

than approved in fiscal year 2001. The Committee has denied the

eight other new political and Presidential appointees requested due

to lack of justification. 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.

Collection of fees.—Bill language is included that credits to the

office of the secretary up to $2,500,000 in funds received for user

fees. Similar language has been carried in the past.

Assessments.—The bill includes a general provision (sec. 338)

prohibiting the obligation of funds for the OST approval of new assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to funds appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act unless such proposals have completed the normal reprogramming process for Congressional notification. This is necessary because the department

has not followed Congressional guidelines against the use of these

funds for policy initiatives. The Committee understands that assessments and reimbursable agreements are useful ways for the

department to pool funds for common administrative services of the

department. However, if the office of the secretary requires additional funding for policy or programmatic initiatives, such funds

should be proposed in the budget requests for OST. The Committee

is not opposed per se to such initiatives, but believes they should

be funded directly and not by taxing the budgets of the modal administrations after the appropriations process is completed.

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ....................................................... $8,140,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... 8,500,000

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

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. +360,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ ............................ 1Does not reflect reduction of $17,908 pursuant to section 1403 of P.L. 106–554.

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 proVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.000 pfrm04 PsN: A279
11

vides a total of $8,500,000 for the office of civil rights, which represents an increase of $360,000 over the fiscal year 2001 enacted

level within the amounts provided. The Committee assumes a 4.6

percent pay raise.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ....................................................... $11,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... 5,193,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 5,193,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. ¥5,807,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ ............................ 1Does not reflect reduction of $24,200 pursuant to section 1403 of P.L. 106–554.

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 $5,193,000 for

transportation planning, research and development, which is the

same level as requested but $5,807,000 less than the amount enacted in fiscal year 2001. The appropriation assumes a 4.6 percent

pay raise.

Domestic and international aviation.—The Committee has approved the 12 new positions requested to build in-house expertise

for analysis of domestic and international aviation issues, including

congestion, airport access and business practices, competition,

mergers, and international alliances. The Committee expects the

highest priority in allocation of staff resources to be provided to

those issues affecting aviation delays and system capacity.

TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CENTER

Limitation, fiscal year 2001 ........................................................... ($126,887,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 1 ................................................. (125,323,000)

Recommended in the bill ............................................................... (125,323,000)

Bill compared with:

Limitation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................... (¥1,564,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ............................................ (—) 1Proposed 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 and where the agreements the

12

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

Senate Committees on Appropriations. These limitations are continued in fiscal year 2002. The Committee recommends a limitation of $125,323,000 on the

transportation administrative service center. 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 have charged modal administrations with 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 2003 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.

Information technology omnibus procurement (ITOP).—For the

past several years, TASC has offered a contracting service to its

customers under a program called the information technology omnibus procurement (ITOP). ITOP is a broad acquisition contract,

nominally for information technology products, which allows purchases through multiple contract types, open subcontracting arrangements, incremental funding, and task orders. The Committee

is concerned that this vehicle is so broad and flexible that it could

be used by DOT agencies to evade departmental oversight or Congressional scrutiny. Furthermore, it is not clear why DOT agencies

such as the Coast Guard use this type of contract, when they have

contract professionals in-house who perform similar work. The

Committee is also unsure whether this fits the main mission of the

TASC, which is to provide common administrative services to the

department. For these reasons, the Committee directs the DOT Inspector General to conduct a thorough review of the ITOP program

and report findings and recommendations to the House and Senate

Committees on Appropriations no later than February 15, 2002.

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

Appropriation Limitation on guaranteed loans

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ....................... $1,900,000 ($13,775,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................... 900,000 (18,367,000)

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

Bill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................. ¥1,000,000 (+4,592,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................ ............................ ............................ 1Does not reflect reduction of $4,180 pursuant to section 1403 of P.L. 106–554.

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 inherVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.000 pfrm04 PsN: A279
13

ently 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. The subsidy costs in fiscal year 2002 are

$1,000,000 less than fiscal year 2001 due to the revised OMB credit

subsidy rate.

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 ......................................................... $3,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... 3,000,000

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

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. ............................

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ ............................

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 2001 and the same level

as requested in the budget.

PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ....................................................... ............................ Budget request, fiscal year 2002 1 ..................................................... ............................ Recommended in the bill ................................................................... $13,000,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. +13,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ +13,000,000 1The FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 authorized the collection of user fees and stipulated that the first $50,000,000 of annual fee collections must be used to finance the EAS program. If a shortfall occurs, the Act

requires FAA to make up the difference from other funds available to the agency.

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 $5 to $320 per passenger, currently support air service to 82 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 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.

14

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 highway 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 2002, the budget has requested several changes

in the EAS program. First, the budget proposes to finance the program from $40,000,000 in overflight user fees and $10,000,000

from the Airport Improvement Program. Currently, the Department is funding this program from recently approved user fees and

from the Federal Aviation Administration’s operation’s account.

Second, the budget makes technical changes to EAS eligibility so

that the program would not have to subsidize air service to communities in the United States (except Alaska) that are located fewer

than 100 highway miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport, or fewer than 70 highway miles from the nearest small hub

airport. Third, the budget includes a new subsidy criteria that

would make communities ineligible for EAS subsidies if they are

fewer than 50 highway miles from the nearest airport providing

scheduled service with jet aircraft. The Committee has denied

these three legislative changes.

According to the Department of Transportation, changes in the

aviation industry have created intense financial pressure on this

subsidy program. The increased use of larger aircraft and regional

jets, combined with substantially higher fuel costs, create a much

higher subsidy requirement in order to hold in service at EAS locations. By law, the department is not given the latitude to eliminate

service to eligible communities; however, the inability to cover an

air service provider’s costs can cause the same effect, because the

provider will choose to exit the market. With funding capped at

$50,000,000, the department is unable to maintain the current

level of services. For this reason, the President’s budget proposed

to tighten eligibility criteria. This change, would have eliminated

the following communities from the EAS program:

States/communities

Estimated mileage to nearest

hub (S, M, or

L) 1

Average daily

enplanements at

EAS point (YE 9/

30/00)

Annual subsidy

rates on April 1,

2001

Subsidy per passenger

ALABAMA

Muscle Shoals ....................................................... 69 24.4 $600,000 $39.23

ARKANSAS

Hot Springs ........................................................... 53 8.4 1,125,591 213.30

Jonesboro ............................................................... 79 7.7 825,569 171.24

COLORADO

Pueblo .................................................................... 43 12.5 527,185 67.46

HAWAII

Hana ...................................................................... 32 6.4 574,500 143.88

Kamuela ................................................................ 39 5.1 424,559 132.34

KANSAS

Topeka ................................................................... 71 12.7 722,141 90.96

KENTUCKY

Owensboro ............................................................. 105 23.2 888,863 61.10

15

States/communities

Estimated mileage to nearest

hub (S, M, or

L) 1

Average daily

enplanements at

EAS point (YE 9/

30/00)

Annual subsidy

rates on April 1,

2001

Subsidy per passenger

MAINE

Augusta/Waterville ................................................ 68 13.1 634,145 77.42

NEW MEXICO

Alamogordo/Holloman ............................................ 91 9.2 882,006 153.23

NEW YORK

Utica ...................................................................... 49 13.6 1,133,415 132.95

Watertown .............................................................. 65 13.0 371,835 45.69

OKLAHOMA

Enid ....................................................................... 84 6.3 972,122 246.61

PENNSYLVANIA

Oil City/Franklin .................................................... 86 20.4 510,261 39.91

PUERTO RICO

Ponce ..................................................................... 77 28.2 474,910 26.91

SOUTH DAKOTA

Brookings ............................................................... 57 3.9 881,662 358.54

TENNESSEE

Jackson .................................................................. 85 20.1 1,151,993 91.61

WISCONSIN

Oshkosh ................................................................. 49 8.8 460,392 83.50

1 Hub designations are recalculated annually and published by the FAA in the Airport Activity Statistics. The above distances are based on

the 1998 Airport Activity Statistics, which is based on CY 1999 passenger data. 2 There is no FAA-designated small, medium or large hub on the island of Molokai.

The Committee notes that most other agencies and activities are

funded in this bill at a level that maintains current services. The

recommendation includes funding to maintain the above-named

communities in the program.

The Committee recommends a total program level for EAS in fis- cal year 2002 of $63,000,000. This funding consists of an appropriation of $13,000,000 and $50,000,000 from overflight user fees or

other funds available to the Federal Aviation Administration.

The Committee is concerned that current trends in the aviation

industry may make it difficult for the EAS program to remain viable over the long-term. As more service providers move toward regional jet service, average per passenger subsidy rates are rising to

a point where federal support may prove unaffordable. In addition,

a fresh and comprehensive look is needed for this subsidy program

initiated at the onset of aviation deregulation 23 years ago. The

Committee directs the U.S. General Accounting Office to conduct a

thorough audit and program evaluation of the current EAS program, to be submitted to the relevant committees of the Congress

no later than April 1, 2002.

COAST GUARD

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2002 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 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.

16

Including funds for national security activities and retired pay

accounts, the Committee recommends a total program level of

$4,996,243,000 for activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2002.

This is $485,580,000 (10.8 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 program level.

The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2001 program levels, the fiscal year 2002 program requests, and the Committee’s

recommendations:

Program

Fiscal year— Committee

recommended 2001 enacted 2002 estimate

Operating expenses ......................................................................... $3,192,000,000 $3,382,838,000 $3,382,588,000

Acquisition, construction, and improvements ................................ 415,000,000 659,323,000 600,000,000

Environmental compliance and restoration .................................... 16,700,000 16,927,000 16,927,000

Alteration of bridges ....................................................................... 15,500,000 15,466,000 15,466,000

Retired pay ...................................................................................... 778,000,000 876,346,000 876,346,000

Reserve training .............................................................................. 80,375,000 83,194,000 83,194,000

Research, development, test, and evaluation ................................ 21,320,000 21,722,000 21,722,000

Across the board rescission ........................................................... ¥8,232,000 ............................ ............................

Total ................................................................................... 4,510,663,000 5,055,816,000 4,996,243,000

ACHIEVEMENT OF PERFORMANCE PLAN GOALS

One of the Committee’s goals this year is to monitor agency

progress in meeting the goals of their performance plans. The Committee believes that resources and incentives should be tied to successful achievement of these goals, and consideration should be

given to withholding resources where goals are not being met. For

the Coast Guard, the results are mixed. The service reported 9

goals that were met and 7 that were not during fiscal year 2000,

for an overall success rate of 56 percent. The non-attainment of

goals was not driven by a curtailment of planned resources, as the

Coast Guard was fully funded in that year. Further, the Committee

notes that the service was unable to meet some goals in critical

mission categories, including drug interdiction, military readiness,

and search and rescue, during fiscal year 2000. The Committee encourages the service to redouble its efforts to improve its achievement of performance plan goals in the coming year, and will continue to monitor progress to foster accountability and results.

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1, 2 .................................................. $3,192,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 3 ................................................... 3,382,838,000

Recommended in the bill 4 ............................................................... 3,382,588,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 ................................................ +190,588,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 .............................................. ¥250,000 1 Includes $341,000,000 for national security activities scored in budget function 050.

2 Excludes $6,967,000 in across the board reduction.

3 Includes $340,250,000 for national security activities scored in budget function 050.

4 Includes $340,000,000 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.

17

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Including $341,000,000 for national security activities, the Committee recommends a total of $3,382,588,000 for operating activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2002, an increase of

$190,588,000 (6 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 appropriation

and $250,000 below the budget request. The reduction of $250,000

is necessary to meet the Subcommittee’s allocation of funds for

Coast Guard national security activities.

SERVICE REDUCTIONS

The President’s budget proposed a number of reductions in Coast

Guard services to the public, including the following:

Decommissionings:

Name Homeport(s) affected

USNS Persistent ........................................................................ Little Creek, VA

USNS Vindicator ........................................................................ San Diego, CA

USCGC Couragous .................................................................... Panama City, FL

USCGC Durable ......................................................................... St. Petersburg, FL

USCGC Cowslip ......................................................................... Astoria, OR

PC-1 (Ex-USS Cyclone) ............................................................. Curtis Bay, MD

Deployable Pursuit Boats (8) ................................................... Little Creek, VA; San Diego, CA; Miami, FL

HU-25 Falcon Jets (13) ............................................................ Miami, FL; Borinquen, PR; Cape Cod, MA; Mobile, AL

HC-130 Hercules Aircraft (3) ................................................... Kodiak, AK; Clearwater, FL; Elizabeth City, NC

Deferred commissionings:

Name Homeports(s) affected

Barracuda-class coastal patrol boat (3) ................................. Undecided

Facility closures:

Name Homeport(s) affected

Air Facility Long Island ............................................................ Long Island, NY

Air Facility Muskegon ............................................................... Muskegon, MI

Service reductions

Reduction in operations tempo for cutters and aircraft; and

Reduction in marine safety activities.

In all, these reductions are expected to result in approximately

20 percent less operating hours in public service in fiscal year

2002. The Committee is disappointed that, within the overall increase of 6 percent, the service is unable to find the $90,701,000

needed to maintain current services. However, it is apparent that

the inability to control rising medical and energy costs, combined

with increased unit costs for personnel compensation and benefits,

makes these reductions necessary. Because of funding guarantees

enacted in TEA–21 and AIR–21 authorizations, regrettably the

Committee does not have the flexibility to restore these resources.

However, the Committee encourages the Coast Guard to economize

wherever possible over the coming year, by reducing administrative

and overhead expenses, to maximize the delivery of services to the

public.

Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are listed below:

18

Change to

Item budget estimate

Minor information technology projects (transfer from AC&I) ............ +$1,000,000

Self-contained breathing apparatus (transfer from AC&I) ................ +1,000,000

Small boat station staffing and readiness ........................................... +12,000,000

Civilian/military pay raise parity (4.6%) ............................................. +4,000,000

Selective re-enlistment bonuses—reduction to growth ....................... ¥3,000,000

Aviation career continuation pay—reduction to growth ..................... ¥300,000

Clothing maintenance allowance adjustment ...................................... ¥300,000

Contract costs—reduction to growth .................................................... ¥3,000,000

Operating funds—other activities ........................................................ ¥4,000,000

Local notice to mariners automation—defer ....................................... ¥925,000

Human resources information system—defer ..................................... ¥1,173,000

Marine transportation system—defer .................................................. ¥845,000

Ice operations—reduction to growth .................................................... ¥4,457,000

Activities transferred from AC&I appropriation.—The Committee

recommendation transfers two items in the Coast Guard’s ‘‘Acquisition, construction, and improvements’’ budget to the service’s operating budget to more appropriately reflect the work being performed. In addition, one of these items (minor information technology projects) has been reduced from the proposed level of

$2,000,000 to $1,000,000 due to budget constraints. The items

being transferred are minor information technology projects and

self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) replacement. The Committee believes that routine equipment purchases such as these

should be maintained in the operating budget, as they do not involve major capital expenses of the agency.

Civilian/military pay raise parity.—The Committee recommendation includes funds to provide a 4.6 percent civilian pay

raise, consistent with the pay raise allowance included in the budget estimate for military personnel. This results in a $4,000,000 increase above the budget proposal. The Committee believes it is important to maintain pay parity between military and civilian

workforces.

Selective reenlistment bonuses.—The Committee is concerned

that, although selective reenlistment bonuses (SRBs) have been increasing, they have not been effective at stemming attrition from

the military workforce. According to Coast Guard data, although

SRBs rose 17.8 percent in fiscal year 2000, enlisted attrition rose

11 percent. In fiscal year 2001, SRBs are estimated to rise another

2 percent, while attrition is expected to increase an additional 5.6

percent. Despite the apparent inability of SRBs to address attrition

problems among the enlisted workforce, the budget proposes to increase them another 68.2 percent (from $8,800,000 to $14,800,000).

Until evidence demonstrates effectiveness, the Committee cannot

approve this level of growth. Further, recent changes in the national economy may improve the attrition situation without the

need for further increases. The Committee recommendation provides half of the requested increase in SRBs, which is $3,000,000

above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.

Aviation career continuation pay.—Like the item discussed above,

this special pay has not been effective at stemming attrition, despite large budgetary increases over the past few years. The Committee recommendation allows an increase of $300,000, which is

half the increase proposed.

Clothing maintenance allowance adjustment.—The President’s

budget proposes an increase in this entitlement, even though enlisted staff years would drop by more than 800 under the budget

19

proposal. The recommendation holds these costs to the fiscal year

2001 level, which should be sufficient given the decrease in enlisted

personnel.

Reduce growth in contract costs.—The recommendation allows an

increase of $21,414,000 in contract costs, a reduction of $3,000,000

below the budget estimate. This is necessary to fund higher priority

safety activities. The Committee believes this small reduction in

contracts can be managed without impacting the Coast Guard’s delivery of services to the public.

Operating funds-other activities.—The recommendation includes

a reduction of $4,000,000 in this budget activity due to budget constraints.

Local notice to mariners automation.—This project is designed to

distribute the local notice to mariners via the internet, replacing

the production and distribution of paper notices. The project also

automates the management and storage of aids to navigation data.

Although supportive of the general concept, the Committee believes

this is a low priority activity which can be deferred to fund higher

priority activities.

Human resources information system (HRIS).—The Coast

Guard’s budget includes $1,173,000 for the service’s contribution to

the DOT-wide human resources information system (HRIS). The

Committee believes this is a low priority activity which can be deferred to fund higher priority activities. The Committee has received no information indicating the compelling need or justification for this project.

Marine transportation system.—Once again this year, the Committee defers funding for this new activity due to lack of justification, a reduction of $845,000 below the budget estimate. According

to the Coast Guard, funds are needed for the service to establish

and act as an interagency coordinator for local port activities. The

Committee is not certain why this additional layer of government

bureaucracy is necessary, or how it will contribute to critical Coast

Guard missions. In a year where the service does not have the

funding to maintain its own ships and aircraft, administrative and

outreach activities such as these should not receive a priority.

Ice operations.—The Committee bill includes a reduction of

$4,457,000 in ice operations. The budget proposed to increase this

funding from $65,302,000 in fiscal year 2001 to a proposed

$128,905,000 in fiscal year 2002. Given the need to fund higher priority activities, the Committee reduces this growth by a small

amount.

Drug interdiction funding.—The bill provides $619,232,000 for

drug interdiction activities. This is an increase of $36,343,000 (6.2

percent) over the estimated expenses for fiscal year 2001 and the

same as the budget estimate. The Committee is concerned that, despite additional resources, the Coast Guard was unable to meet its

performance plan goal in fiscal year 2000, and does not anticipate

meeting its goal in fiscal year 2001. The Coast Guard’s goal is to

interdict 15 percent of cocaine being shipped through the transit

zone in fiscal year 2001, and 18.7 percent in fiscal year 2002. The

seizure rate achieved in fiscal year 2000 was 10.6 percent. Given

this, it is disappointing that the Coast Guard’s budget proposes to

decommission a large percentage of the service’s drug interdiction

fleet of ships and aircraft, including many assets provided by the

20

Congress in emergency supplemental appropriations just two years

ago. The Committee intends to hold agencies accountable for meeting their performance plan goals. With their current budget proposal, the Coast Guard may be setting itself up for failure and increased oversight in this area.

SMALL BOAT STATION READINESS

The Committee remains extremely concerned over the worsening

condition of our small boat stations, as well as the Coast Guard’s

inadequate response to that problem. Due to severe understaffing,

today over 90 percent of station personnel work an average of 84

hours per week. In a Coast Guard survey in 1999, personnel at

these stations reported they average 5.5 hours per day for eating

and sleeping combined. These long hours not only reduce the quality of life for Coast Guard personnel and their families, it clearly

raises the level of fatigue during operational hours. Under contract

to the Coast Guard, the Center for Naval Analysis concluded in

1999 ‘‘it is plausible that personnel operating under these conditions will be more likely to make mistakes that could cost lives or

lead to injury’’. In addition to the staffing shortfall, training is a

major issue. The stations are largely dependent upon on-the-job

training (OJT); however, because the experience level of station

crews has fallen significantly over the past few years, OJT is increasingly conducted by inexperienced instructors. Although written examinations are used to determine proficiency, the Coast

Guard has neglected to establish a pass/fail standard to determine

unacceptable scores. Finally, the primary boat used by the young

men and women at small boat stations is antiquated and difficult

to maintain. The understaffed and undertrained personnel are simply unable to maintain these old boats in a seaworthy condition,

even though their own lives depend on those vessels while underway. During fiscal year 2000, Coast Guard inspection teams declared 84 percent of inspected boats to be not mission capable.

Given this situation, it is not surprising that the Coast Guard recently incurred a $19,000,000 court judgment stemming from improper response to a SAR case; that ‘‘man overboard’’ cases involving Coast Guard personnel are four times the level experienced

only three years ago; that small boat groundings and collisions are

rising at alarming rates; and that one-third of enlisted personnel

graduating from Coast Guard ‘‘boot camp’’ do not complete their

four year contract with the Untied States. Understaffing, inexperience, fatigue, inadequate training, and youth combine at these stations with all too tragic results for Coast Guard families as well as

the boating public. The Coast Guard’s own internal budget documents state ‘‘Coast Guard personnel and the American public are

increasingly being placed at risk as the Coast Guard is forced to

use inexperienced apprentice-level personnel to staff boat crews

and boarding teams . . . Over 60 percent of the people assigned to

stations are the most inexperienced of apprentices, many of whom

are assigned experienced journeyman or master level tasks.’’ Despite this warning, the Coast Guard reduced funds for small boat

stations in their internal budget process, and the service has not

requested funds to replace the aging utility boats.

The Committee recognizes Coast Guard actions to address this

issue. The service has taken some modest steps to improve readiVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.000 pfrm04 PsN: A279
21

ness during fiscal year 2001, and the Commandant has voiced a

personal commitment to address the problems. However, the budget proposal is inadequate, and would do little to improve the situation next year. Funds for replacement of the 41-foot utility boat

were stripped from the fiscal year 2002 budget to finance other priorities. And increased operations funding for small boat stations

was cut in the Coast Guard internal budget process. In the final

President’s budget, the service requested 194 new positions to improve SAR station readiness—then advised the Committee that the

positions would not be filled until the summer of 2003. Funds were

only requested to hire these positions after most of the fiscal year

had passed.

Once again this year, the Committee reiterates that the service

must do more to bring the small boat stations up to minimum acceptable standards of readiness, staffing and workload. This situation must not—and will not—continue. The Committee recommendation includes an additional $12,000,000 in operating

funds to address personnel and training shortfalls, and $18,000,000

in acquisition funds to begin replacement of the 41-foot utility boat

fleet. The Committee will continue to monitor this situation over

the coming year to ensure that the directed improvements are

being made expeditiously.

Maritime patrol aircraft leasing.—The Committee directs the

Coast Guard to study the benefits and costs of leasing aircraft for

the maritime patrol mission, rather than acquiring new aircraft for

this purpose. This analysis should be completed, and submitted to

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, no later than

April 1, 2002. The Committee notes that drug interdiction aircraft

in the HITRON–10 squadron are already leased by the Coast

Guard.

Fire retardant technology.—The Committee encourages the Coast

Guard to investigate the application of new fire retardant technology, for which $2,000,000 was provided for application to Navy

vessels in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2001.

The Committee believes that this technology may have equal benefits for Coast Guard vessels.

BILL LANGUAGE

Defense-related activities.—The bill specifies that $340,000,000 of

the total amount provided is for defense-related activities,

$1,000,000 below the level enacted for fiscal year 2001, and the

same as the budget estimate.

User fees.—Consistent with the budget request, the Committee

bill does not preclude the Coast Guard from using funds to plan,

finalize, or implement any new user fees unless legislation signed

into law after the date of enactment of this Act specifically authorizes them.

GENERAL PROVISION

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

bill continues as a general provision (Sec. 312) 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 DeVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.000 pfrm04 PsN: A279
22

partment 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 2001 1 ....................................................... $415,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... 659,323,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 600,000,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. +185,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ ¥59,323,000 1 Excludes $869,000 in across the board reduction.

The bill includes $600,000,000 for the capital acquisition, construction, and improvements program of the Coast Guard for vessels, aircraft, other equipment, shore facilities, and related administrative expenses, of which $19,956,000 is to be derived from the

oil spill liability trust fund.

Consistent with past practice, the bill also includes language distributing the total appropriation by budget activity and providing

separate obligation availabilities appropriate for the type of activity

being performed. The Committee continues to believe that these obligation availabilities provide fiscal discipline and reduce long-term

unobligated balances.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The recommended bill includes $600,000,000 for this appropriation, including $300,000,000 for the Integrated Deepwater Systems

(‘‘deepwater’’) program. This represents an almost 50 percent increase in the Coast Guard’s capital budget in a single year—an extraordinary feat given the current budget constraints. The bill fully

funds the high priority National Distress System Modernization

Project, and begins a new initiative to replace the Coast Guard’s

aging fleet of 41–foot utility boats. The following table compares

the fiscal year 2001 enacted level, the fiscal year 2002 estimate,

and the recommended level by program, project and activity:

Program Name FY 2001 enacted FY 2002 estimate Recommended

amount

Vessels ...................................................................................... $156,450,000 $79,390,000 $90,990,000

Survey and design—cutters and boats .......................... 500,000 500,000 500,000

Seagoing buoy tender (WLB) replacement ...................... 118,000,000 70,000,000 68,000,000

Polar icebreaker—USCGC Healy ...................................... 1,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Configuration management ............................................. 3,600,000 .............................. ..............................

Surface search radar replacement project ...................... 1,150,000 .............................. ..............................

Polar class icebreaker reliability improvement program 4,500,000 8,890,000 4,490,000

87-Foot patrol boat (WPB) replacement .......................... 22,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Alex Haley conversion project—phase II ......................... 3,200,000 .............................. ..............................

Over-the-horizon cutter boats .......................................... 1,500,000 .............................. ..............................

Coast Guard patrol craft (WPC) conversion project ....... 1,000,000 .............................. ..............................

41 foot utility boat replacement ..................................... .............................. .............................. 18,000,000

23

Program Name FY 2001 enacted FY 2002 estimate Recommended

amount

Aircraft ...................................................................................... 37,650,000 500,000 26,000,000

HH–65A helicopter mission computer replacement ........ 3,650,000 .............................. ..............................

HH–65 LTS–101 engine life cycle cost reduction ........... 7,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Aviation simulator modernization project ........................ 3,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Coast Guard cutter Healy aviation support .................... 24,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Aviation parts and support ............................................. .............................. .............................. 26,000,000

C–130J system provisioning/training support analyses .............................. 500,000 ..............................

Other Equipment ....................................................................... 60,113,000 95,471,000 74,173,000

Fleet logistics system ...................................................... 5,500,000 .............................. ..............................

Ports and waterways safety system (PAWSS) ................. 6,100,000 17,600,000 6,100,000

Marine information for safety and law enforcement

(MISLE) ........................................................................ 8,500,000 7,450,000 7,450,000

Aviation logistics management information system

(ALMIS) ........................................................................ 1,100,000 .............................. ..............................

National distress system modernization ......................... 23,800,000 42,000,000 42,000,000

Personnel MIS/Jt uniform military pay system ................ 2,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Local notice to mariners automation .............................. 600,000 .............................. ..............................

Defense message system implementation ...................... 2,471,000 2,000,000 2,000,000

Commercial satellite communications ............................ 5,459,000 1,500,000 1,500,000

Global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS) ... 3,083,000 2,200,000 2,200,000

Search and rescue capabilities enhancement project .... 1,500,000 1,320,000 1,320,000

Thirteenth district microwave modernization project ...... .............................. 800,000 800,000

Hawaii rainbow communications system modernization .............................. 3,100,000 ..............................

High frequency recapitalization and modernization ........ .............................. 2,500,000 2,500,000

Readiness management system ...................................... .............................. 1,675,000 ..............................

DOD C41 interoperability ................................................. .............................. 1,530,000 1,530,000

Command center readiness/infrastructure recapitalization .............................................................................. .............................. 727,000 727,000

P-250 pump replacement ................................................ .............................. 2,046,000 2,046,000

Configuration management—phase II ............................ .............................. 6,023,000 4,000,000

Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) replacement ............................................................................ .............................. 1,000,000 ..............................

Minor information technology projects ............................ .............................. 2,000,000 ..............................

Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation ................................... 63,336,000 79,262,000 44,206,000

Survey and design—shore projects ................................ 7,000,000 8,000,000 7,000,000

Minor AC&I shore construction projects .......................... 5,330,000 7,262,000 5,500,000

Housing ............................................................................ 10,000,000 11,000,000 13,500,000

Waterways ATON projects ................................................ 4,706,000 8,000,000 4,706,000

Air Station Kodiak, AK—renovate hanger ....................... 8,200,000 .............................. ..............................

Transportation Improvements—Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA ................................................................... 8,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Coast Guard MEC waterfront improvements—Portsmouth, VA .................................................................... 2,400,000 .............................. ..............................

Modernize Coast Guard facilities—phase 1—Cape

May, NJ ........................................................................ 5,800,000 .............................. ..............................

Rebuild Coast Guard Station, Port Huron, MI ................. 1,300,000 3,100,000 3,100,000

Modernize Air Station Port Angeles hangar, Port Angeles, WA ......................................................................... 3,800,000 .............................. ..............................

Homeporting pier construction—Homer, AK ................... 5,800,000 .............................. ..............................

Helipad modernization—Craig, AK .................................. 1,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Consolidate facilities—Elizabeth City, NC ...................... .............................. 6,300,000 ..............................

Consolidate warehouse—Coast Guard Yard, MD ........... .............................. 12,600,000 ..............................

Rebuild Group/MSO—Long Island Sound, NY ................. .............................. 4,900,000 4,900,000

Construct new station—Brunswick, GA .......................... .............................. 3,600,000 3,600,000

Replace utilities, ISC building number 8—Boston, MA .............................. 1,600,000 1,600,000

Construct engineering bldg—ISC Honolulu, HI .............. .............................. 7,200,000 ..............................

Consolidate Kodiak aviation support—Kodiak, AK ......... .............................. 5,700,000 ..............................

Reconstruct North Wall, Escanaba Municipal Dock, MI .. .............................. .............................. 300,000

Personnel and Related Support: ............................................... 55,151,000 66,700,000 64,631,000

Direct personnel costs ..................................................... 54,151,000 65,700,000 63,931,000

Core acquisition costs ..................................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 700,000

Integrated Deepwater Systems ................................................. 42,300,000 338,000,000 300,000,000

Total appropriation ................................................................... 415,000,000 659,323,000 600,000,000

24

VESSELS

The Committee recommends $90,990,000 for vessels, an increase

of $11,600,000 above the budget request. Specific adjustments to

the budget estimate are explained below.

Seagoing buoy tender replacement.—The Committee recommendation provides $68,000,000 for the seagoing buoy tender

(WLB) replacement program, $2,000,000 below the budget estimate. The Committee bill anticipates that this funding level will be

sufficient to acquire two WLBs, as proposed in the budget estimate.

The reduction is due to budget constraints and the need to fund

other high priority initiatives.

Forty-one foot utility boat replacement.—The Committee recommendation includes $18,000,000 to begin a multiyear replacement of the aging 41–foot utility boat (UTB) fleet. The Coast

Guard’s five year Capital Investment Plan dated August 2000 included $116,000,000 (over 5 years) to replace or modernize the 41-

foot utility boats (UTBs) and other small boats, including

$12,200,000 for fiscal year 2002. The current plan, submitted in

April 2001, eliminated all of that funding, including any request for

fiscal years 2002. This funding would have been used to design and

procure a replacement for the current UTB, which is approaching

the end of its service life. A 1998 Coast Guard study estimated end

of service life for the UTB engine in the year 2003, which requires

near-term action.

Boatracs systems.—In last year’s conference action, the conferees

requested the Coast Guard to evaluate the ‘‘boatracs’’ system,

which is designed to address communications problems in the

Coast Guard eighth district. The Committee directs the Coast

Guard to submit, not later than December 1, 2001, an evaluation

report and recommendations on this effort.

AIRCRAFT

The Committee recommends $26,000,000 for aircraft.

Aviation parts and support.—Although not included in the President’s budget, Coast Guard officials indicate a budget amendment

will soon request $27,000,000 for aviation spare parts. The Committee believes these items should be included in the ‘‘Operating

expenses’’ appropriation, and strongly encourages the service to include these items in that appropriation in future budget requests.

The recommended level of $26,000,000 includes $1,000,000 for the

application of ambient temperature-cured (ATC) glass technology to

Coast Guard aircraft. ATC coatings on aircraft provide a protective

barrier on treated surfaces, preventing water molecules, salt, and

other substances from contacting the surface, and thereby reducing

or eliminating corrosion. The Coast Guard has evaluated ATC glass

coatings with positive results, and has expressed an interest in expanding the program. The funding is provided to support the application of ATC coatings on aircraft while inducted in scheduled

depot level maintenance.

C–130J system provisioning and training support analyses—The

Committee denies the $500,000 requested for this activity, believing it to be more appropriately funded from the ‘‘Operating expenses’’ appropriation.

25

OTHER EQUIPMENT

The Committee recommends $74,173,000 for other equipment, a

reduction of $21,298,000 below the budget estimate and

$14,060,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2001. Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are explained below.

Ports and waterways safety system (PAWSS).—The Committee

recommendation allows the fiscal year 2001 funding level for this

program, rather than the much larger increase requested. The

Committee believes the expansion of this program to other ports

can proceed at a slower pace given other high priority needs.

National distress and response system (ND&RS) modernization.—The Committee recommends the full $42,000,000 proposed

for this program, given its criticality to the Coast Guard’s search

and rescue modernization effort. However, the Committee is concerned over reports that the current program design may be

unaffordable. The Committee strongly encourages the Coast Guard

to simplify this program so that essential modernization requirements can be met without delay to the current schedule. If this is

not accomplished, the high priority of this program could undermine the Coast Guard’s ability to fully finance or execute the deepwater program.

In last year’s bill, the Committee provided $1,800,000 for the

Coast Guard to conduct a test of digital selective calling (DSC)

technology and its impact on ND&RS system requirements. The

Committee further directed the Coast Guard to conduct this test

expeditiously. The Committee is very concerned to learn that, instead of proceeding to test DSC, the Coast Guard is in the process

of letting several contracts for a development program, even though

the technology already exists in the private sector and is ready for

testing. This is not in keeping with the intent of Congress. Since

DSC technology for survivor locating devices has already been developed, the Committee does not find it appropriate for the Coast

Guard to fund additional or competing developments of this existing technology, particularly when there is some urgency to undertake the testing of DSC technology. As recently as March, 2001,

two Coast Guardsmen lost their lives when they were washed overboard while patrolling the Niagara River at Youngstown, New

York. The crew members were in icy water for several hours while

a search was conducted. In this situation, survivor locating technology could have meant the difference between life and death. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Coast Guard to implement the

intent of Congress as expressed in report language accompanying

the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, and to proceed expeditiously to a test of existing

DSC survivor locating devices.

Hawaii rainbow communications system.—The Committee recommends a deferral of this new project pending strong justification.

Readiness management system.—The Committee denies the

$1,675,000 requested for this activity, believing it to be more appropriately funded from the ‘‘Operating expenses’’ appropriation.

Configuration management.—The Committee recommends

$4,000,000, a reduction of $2,023,000 below the budget estimate,

due to budget constraints and the impending implementation of the

deepwater program.

26

Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) replacement.—The

Committee denies the $1,000,000 requested for this activity, believing it to be more appropriately funded from the ‘‘Operating expenses’’ appropriation. A similar amount has been included in that

appropriation.

Minor information technology projects.—The Committee denies

the $2,000,000 requested for this activity, believing it to be more

appropriately funded from the ‘‘Operating expenses’’ appropriation. Funding of $1,000,000 has been included in that appropriation. The

reduction is due to the low priority of this activity. The Committee

believes the Coast Guard can pursue the most critical information

technology needs within the level provided.

SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION

The Committee recommends $44,206,000 for shore facilities and

aids to navigation, a reduction of $35,056,000 below the budget estimate and $19,130,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal

year 2001.

Minor AC&I shore construction projects.—The recommendation

provides $5,500,000, a 3.2 percent increase over the fiscal year

2001 enacted level, rather than the 34.4 percent increase requested.

Housing.—The recommendation provides $13,500,000, an in- crease of $2,500,000 above the budget estimate. The additional

funds are for Coast Guard housing at the Joint Reserve Center,

Belle Chasse, Louisiana. The U.S. Navy is in the final stages of finalizing a public-private venture for housing units at this base, and

additional funding is needed for the Coast Guard to take advantage

of the project. This is expected to provide between 80 and 130 units

of family housing, primarily for enlisted Coast Guard personnel

and their families, in Southeastern Louisiana.

Waterways aids to navigation projects.—The recommendation

provides $4,706,000, the same level as enacted for fiscal year 2001.

The reduction of $1,294,000 is due to budget constraints.

Consolidation projects.—The Committee recommendation deletes

funding for three facilities consolidation projects in the budget request. These include the proposed consolidations in Elizabeth City,

North Carolina (¥$6,300,000); Kodiak, Alaska (¥$5,700,000); and

Baltimore, Maryland (¥$12,600,000). These reductions are made

without prejudice, and are necessary to maintain a high level of

funding for the deepwater program and to begin replacement of the

41-foot utility boat. In addition, the budget justifications make no

reference to the project in Kodiak, Alaska, and the Committee has

no other information to support the request. The Committee will

consider these projects again in future years.

Construct engineering building, ISC Honolulu, HI.—The recommendation deletes the $7,200,000 requested for this project. The

budget justifications make no reference to this project, and the

Committee has no other information to support the request.

Reconstruction, municipal dock north wall, Escanaba, MI.—The

bill includes $300,000 for the Coast Guard’s share of funding to reconstruct the north wall of the municipal dock in Escanaba, Michigan. This represents 30 percent of the total cost of the project, with

the balance being financed by local authorities. Given the Coast

Guard’s presence and use of this dock facility, the Committee beVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.000 pfrm04 PsN: A279
27

lieves it reasonable for the service to finance a portion of the reconstruction cost. A similar project was included in the Coast Guard’s

budget for facilities in Bayonne, New Jersey in fiscal year 1998.

PERSONNEL AND RELATED SUPPORT

The Committee recommends $64,631,000 for personnel and re- lated support, an increase of $9,480,000 (17.2 percent) above the

amount provided for fiscal year 2001 and $569,000 below the administration’s request. The reduction is due to higher budgetary

priorities.

INTEGRATED DEEPWATER SYSTEMS PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $300,000,000 for the integrated deepwater systems (IDS) program, which is $38,000,000 (11.2 percent) below the budget estimate and $257,700,000 (609 percent)

above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001.

The deepwater program—scheduled for contract award in fiscal

year 2002—is the most costly acquisition program ever attempted by the Coast Guard or the Department of Transportation. This $18

billion acquisition is designed to replace or modernize over 90 cutters and 200 aircraft (fixed- and rotary-wing) which are used 50

miles from shore and beyond. Under current plans, the program

will be accomplished under a ‘‘winner take all’’ contract, currently

scheduled to be awarded in the spring of 2002.

According to a recent report by the U.S. General Accounting Office, the deepwater acquisition is unique and untried for a project

of this magnitude, and carries many risks which could potentially

cause significant schedule delays and cost overruns. The Committee agrees that deepwater represents a highly risky acquisition

strategy undertaken by a service with very little experience in

overseeing or managing such programs. For example: —Even though the greatest risk to the program is affordability,

the Coast Guard is directing industry to design a system which exceeds OMB budget targets by almost half a billion dollars in the

first 5 years alone; —Under existing authorizing legislation, the Coast Guard is one

of the few ‘‘unguaranteed’’ programs remaining in the DOT budget,

which requires the service to compete for increased funding against

non-transportation priorities in the annual budget process; —The Coast Guard deepwater acquisition plan states ‘‘any significant funding shortfall in a single year, or any consistent funding shortfall over a period of years, could create an impossibility to

manage the systems integration contract and could result in a termination of the contract’’. By knowingly designing a system which

greatly exceeds budgetary expectations, the Coast Guard is pursuing an extremely high risk contracting strategy which could lead

to annual claims for delay and disruption charges; —The benefits of the initial competition will decrease after the

first few years of the contract, and the service will be negotiating

any changes in a sole source environment as their fleet continues

to age. This could provide significant negotiating leverage to the

prime contractor, not the Federal Government. —Due to its size, deepwater clearly has a negative effect on other

capital needs of the Coast Guard. For example, last year the Coast

Guard planned to spend $475 million on non-deepwater projects in

28

the year 2005. This funding was reduced to $196 million in the current plan. New priorities, or cost growth in existing programs, will

put additional pressure on the deepwater program.

Given these difficulties, and the Coast Guard’s own assessment

of funding risk, the Committee does not find it prudent to provide

first-year acquisition funding without assurances of long-term support from the administration. Therefore, the bill includes a provision prohibiting the obligation of funds for the deepwater system

integration contract until the Secretary of Transportation, or his

designee within the Office of the Secretary, and the Director, Office

of Management and Budget (OMB) jointly certify to the House and

Senate Committees on Appropriations that IDS program funding

for fiscal years 2003 through 2007 is fully funded in the Coast

Guard Capital Investment Plan and within OMB’s budgetary projections for those years.

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 2001.

Disposal of real property.—The bill maintains the provision enacted in fiscal year 2001 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 2002 only for the national distress and response system

(ND&RS) modernization project.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ....................................................... $16,700,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... 16,927,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 16,927,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. +227,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ ............................ 1 Excludes $37,000 in across the board reduction.

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 $16,927,000 is the same as

the budget estimate and $227,000 (1.4 percent) above the fiscal

year 2001 enacted level.

29

ALTERATION OF BRIDGES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ....................................................... $15,500,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... 15,466,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 15,466,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. ¥34,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ ............................ 1 Excludes $35,000 in across the board reduction.

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 $15,466,000 for five bridges. The

Committee directs that, of the funds provided, $3,000,000 shall be

allocated to the Sidney Lanier highway bridge in Brunswick, Georgia; $5,716,000 shall be allocated to the Fourteen Mile Bridge over

the Mobile River in Mobile, Alabama; $1,250,000 shall be allocated

to the Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Bridge in Morris, Illinois;

$1,000,000 shall be allocated to widening the Galveston Causeway

railroad bridge in Galveston, Texas; $1,500,000 shall be allocated

to the Chelsea Street Bridge in Boston, Massachusetts; and

$3,000,000 shall be allocated to the Florida Avenue railroad/highway combination bridge in New Orleans, Louisiana.

Millenium Port selection.—In an effort to expand United States

trade with Latin America and South America, the State of Louisiana has developed the Millenium Port Commission. Funds were

provided in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for federal support of this

commission’s activities. The Committee encourages the Millenium

Port Commission to complete its analysis and release its final site

selection study, with recommendations for a Millenium Port, by

January 1, 2002.

RETIRED PAY

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 ......................................................... $778,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... 876,346,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 876,346,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. +98,346,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ —

This appropriation provides for the retired pay of military personnel of the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve. 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.

30

The bill provides $876,346,000, the same as the budget estimate and $98,346,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. This is

scored as a mandatory appropriation in the Congressional budget

process.

15-year career status bonus payments.—The bill does not include

funds for 15 year career status bonus payments, which were authorized under the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal

year 2001. Such funding is inappropriate for inclusion in this mandatory appropriation, as it involves discretionary payments to active duty personnel, not entitlements for retired personnel and

their families. The Committee has no objection to the use of ‘‘Operating expenses’’ funds for these bonuses.

RESERVE TRAINING

(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 20011 ........................................................ $80,375,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... 83,194,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 83,194,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. +2,819,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ — 1 Excludes $176,000 in across the board reduction.

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 $83,194,000 for reserve training, which is the

same as the budget estimate and $2,819,000 (3.5 percent) above the

fiscal year 2001 level. This is expected to support a Selected Reserve level of 7,920, which is the same level as estimated for fiscal

year 2001. Last year, Congress provided additional funding to

maintain a Selected Reserve level of 8,000. Despite those funds,

and the Commandant’s desire to maintain that level, the Selected

Reserve force is expected to dip to 7,920 in fiscal year 2001. The

Committee encourages the Coast Guard to maintain as high a level

as possible within the funding level provided. Given the level of

support provided by reservists not only in national security missions, but also to routine missions of the active duty workforce, the

Committee believes the reserves have proven to be a force multiplier within the Coast Guard, augmenting the efficient delivery of

Coast Guard service to the public.

Reimbursement to ‘‘Operating expenses’’.—The Committee has approved an increase in the limitation on allowable reimbursements

of the Coast Guard operating expenses appropriation from the

Coast Guard Reserve training appropriation to $25,800,000. Despite approval of this increase to the transfer cap, the Committee

31

remains concerned about the basis and rationale for the practice of

annual reimbursement, which appears to be unique to the Coast

Guard among the armed forces, and the potential commingling of

funds from separate and discrete appropriations. As a result, the

Committee has agreed to retain the cap on reimbursements, as well

as prohibit other direct charges, for fiscal year 2002.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 20011 ........................................................ $21,320,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... 21,722,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 21,722,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. +402,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ — 1 Excludes $40,000 in across the board reduction.

The bill includes $21,722,000 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, $3,492,000 is to

be derived from the oil spill liability trust fund, as requested in the

budget estimate. This is $402,000 (1.9 percent) above the amount

provided for fiscal year 2001.

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2002 PROGRAM

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for the

safety and development of civil aviation and the evolution of a national system of airports. Most of the activities of the FAA will be

funded with direct appropriations in fiscal year 2002. The grantsin-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 2002 and assumes no new user

fees.

The recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal year 2002

totals $13,275,481,000, including a $3,300,000,000 limitation on the

use of contract authority. This is $687,481,000 (5.5 percent) above

the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and essentially the same as the

President’s request. This bill complies with the guaranteed funding

levels of Public Law 106–181.

The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2001 program levels, the fiscal year 2002 program requests, and the Committee’s

recommendations:

Program

Fiscal year—

2001 enacted1 2002 estimate 2002 recommended

Operations ................................................................................. $6,544,235,000 $6,886,000,000 $6,870,000,000

Facilities and equipment .......................................................... 2,656,765,000 2,914,000,000 2,914,000,000

Research, engineering, and development ................................ 187,000,000 187,781,000 191,481,000

Grants-in-aid for airports (AIP) 2 ............................................. 3,200,000,000 3,300,000,000 3,300,000,000

Total ............................................................................. 12,588,000,000 13,287,781,000 13,275,481,000

1 Excludes $606,697,000 in rescissions and across-the-board reductions.

2 Limitation on obligations from contract authority.

32

OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 20011 ........................................................ $6,544,235,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... 6,886,000,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 6,870,000,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. +325,765,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ ¥16,000,000 1 Excludes $14,397,000 in across the board reductions.

This appropriation provides funds for the operations, 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) administration of the civil aviation security program; (7) headquarters, administration and other staff offices; and

(8) development, printing, and distribution of aeronautical charts

used by the flying public.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $6,870,000,000 for FAA operations, an increase of $325,765,000 (5.2 percent) above the level provided

for fiscal year 2001. The recommended level is $16,000,000 below

the President’s budget request.

A breakdown of the fiscal year 2001 enacted level, the fiscal year

2002 budget estimate, and the Committee recommendation by

budget activity is as follows:

Budget Activity

Fiscal year—

2001 enacted 2002 estimate 2002 recommended

Air traffic services .................................................................... $5,200,274,000 $5,447,421,000 $5,494,883,000

Aviation regulation and certification ........................................ 694,979,000 744,744,000 727,870,000

Civil aviation security ............................................................... 139,301,000 150,154,000 135,949,000

Research and acquisition ......................................................... 189,988,000 196,674,000 195,258,000

Commercial space transportation ............................................ 12,000,000 14,706,000 12,254,000

Financial services ..................................................................... 48,444,000 50,684,000 50,480,000

Human resources ...................................................................... 54,864,000 74,516,000 67,635,000

Regional coordination ............................................................... 99,347,000 90,893,000 84,613,000

Staff offices .............................................................................. 105,038,000 116,208,000 108,776,000

Account-wide adjustments ....................................................... .............................. .............................. ¥7,718,000

Total ............................................................................. 6,544,235,000 6,886,000,000 6,870,000,000

USER FEES

The bill assumes the collection of no additional user fees in fiscal

year 2002 that were not Congressionally authorized for collection

during fiscal year 2001. The FAA estimates that $40,000,000 in

overflight user fees will be collected during fiscal year 2002. However, these funds will not be available to augment the FAA’s budgVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.000 pfrm04 PsN: A279
33

et, 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 2002. The bill also assumes the collection of $19,500,000 from the purchase of aeronautical maps and charts produced by the agency.

TRUST FUND SHARE OF FAA BUDGET

The bill derives $5,773,519,000 of the total appropriation from

the airport and airway trust fund, consistent with current law. The

balance of the appropriation ($1,096,481,000) will be drawn from

the general fund of the Treasury.

STAFFING ADJUSTMENT

The recommendation includes reductions, in several lines of business, totaling $57,900,000 in recognition of a slowdown in hiring

during fiscal year 2001 which affects the agency’s financial requirement for fiscal year 2002. According to the agency, onboard employment as of March 2001 is 930 below the level assumed in the current budget request for fiscal year 2001. The budget request for fiscal year 2002 represents an additional 1,457 positions above the

current onboard level. The Committee does not believe this level of

hiring is credible over the next several months. The recommendation assumes that approximately one-half of the budgeted positions

will be filled during fiscal year 2001. Continuation funding for the

remaining one-half has not been provided. New positions requested

in the fiscal year 2002 budget are not affected by this recommendation.

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM HANDOFF COSTS

Under an activity titled ‘‘National Airspace System (NAS)

Handoff’’, the President’s budget proposes to transfer $76,400,000

in operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses for newly-deployed

systems and equipment to the ‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ appropriation. While the agency has historically included first-year O&M

costs in their capital appropriation, the budget proposes to include

the second year of such costs as well. The Committee sees no reason to discontinue the longstanding practice which recognizes that,

in the initial year of operation, one-time costs often occur due to

startup problems. These are more appropriately aligned with the

initial provision of new capital equipment than a stable recurring

expense. However, after the first year, the agency’s O&M needs

should be stable and known, and therefore included in the operating budget. The Committee believes that extending the period of

F&E funding support sets an ill-advised precedent which could undermine the important distinction between the operating and capital budgets of the agency. Furthermore, the proposed shift is in

violation of direction in the statement of the managers accompanying Public Law 106–181. Consequently, the recommendation

shifts $44,828,000 from ‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ to this appropriation to more appropriately reflect the work being performed.

Although this represents a reduction from the budget estimate, the

34

Committee notes that the agency has accommodated significant reductions in past years without a major impact.

TRAVEL PAYMENTS TO EMPLOYEES ON EXTENDED TEMPORARY DUTY

ASSIGNMENTS

On February 12, 2001, the DOT Inspector General wrote the

FAA Administrator expressing concern that FAA employees on extended temporary duty (TDY) assignments may be allowed to collect per diem payments while at their residences. FAA even allows

employees to work four ten-hour days, travel home and back at

agency expense, and continue to be paid per diem over the threeday weekend. According to the Inspector General, the FAA has proposed changes to its travel policy which will expressly permit FAA

employees to collect per diem while at their residences and while

on leave. FAA estimated the cost of implementing this change to

be $3,300,000 annually. Although the IG had expressed concerns in

August 2000, over six months later a response had not been received. The IG’s letter to FAA says ‘‘we do not consider the reimbursement of employees for expenses they do not incur to be legal

. . . Nor do we consider the proposal consistent with the intent of

personnel reform at FAA’’. The Committee concurs with the Inspector General, and directs FAA not to make such a change in its travel policy. Furthermore, the Committee directs FAA to investigate

and pursue other less expensive options, such as direct billing for

lodging costs, to reduce unnecessary costs. Should the agency implement such a policy change, the Committee will scrutinize very

carefully its affordability in the current budget climate.

The Committee’s specific recommendations by budget activity are

discussed below.

PAY RAISE

In all appropriate subaccounts, the bill includes additional funding to finance a 4.6 percent general civilian pay raise. In total, this

results in an additional $35,831,000 above the budget estimate.

This is consistent with other accounts in the bill, and will allow

pay raise parity between military and civilian workforces. Funds

have been added as shown below:

Air traffic services ................................................................................. +$29,125,000

Aviation regulation and certification ................................................... +4,126,000

Civil aviation security ........................................................................... +795,000

Research and acquisition ...................................................................... +334,000

Commercial space transportation ......................................................... +48,000

Financial services .................................................................................. +96,000

Human resources ................................................................................... +119,000

Region and center operations ............................................................... +620,000

Staff offices ............................................................................................. +568,000

Total ............................................................................................. +35,831,000

AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES

The Committee recommends $5,494,883,000 for air traffic services, an increase of $294,609,000 (5.7 percent) above the fiscal year

2001 enacted level. As the following chart indicates, this is above

the estimated increase in FAA’s air traffic workload for fiscal year

2002.

35

Adjustment to new hire controller training.—The President’s

budget requested funding to honor the current labor agreement

with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA),

which calls for an additional 300 controller staff years in fiscal year

2002. However, the budget goes farther by proposing to fill 600 positions during the year. In essence, the budget proposes to have onboard by the end of fiscal year 2002 those controllers required in

both fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003. This led the agency to

request an additional $17,147,000 in fiscal year 2002 to train the

new controllers. While fully funding the labor agreement requirement for an additional 300 staff years, the Committee bill assumes

that, through accelerated hiring made possible by personnel reform, the agency will be able to bring the 300 new controllers on

board at the beginning of the fiscal year. This will obviate the need

for one-half of the requested training increase, resulting in a reduction of $8,574,000 below the budget estimate.

Controller productivity initiatives.—In hearings this year, the

Committee requested the DOT Inspector General to provide suggestions on measures to hold the FAA accountable as a results-based

organization. One of those suggestions was to implement the productivity improvements agreed to—but never carried out—in the

1998 NATCA contract. These changes were intended to offset some

of the additional $1 billion in payroll costs associated with the contract. However, according to the IG, ‘‘FAA has been unable to demonstrate any discernible savings or that any of the following have

actually occurred as originally promised’’. The changes which need

to be implemented include:

• Elimination of alternate work schedules to reduce overtime;

• Limit official time for union activities to reduce overtime;

• Buy back unused sick leave to reduce sick leave usage;


Insert offset folio 01 here 73279.033
36

• Make greater use of part-time controllers to reduce payroll

costs; • Establish flat rate relocation expenses to reduce travel

costs; • Develop an alternate dispute resolution procedure to reduce grievances and arbitration costs.

The Committee intends to hold the FAA accountable for implementing these changes already agreed to by the labor union. The

bill assumes savings of $5,000,000 from the initial implementation

of these initiatives during fiscal year 2002.

Information security management.—The Committee denies the

$215,000 requested for this activity due to lack of justification.

Restoration of air traffic supervisors.—The recommendation restores 75 air traffic control supervisor positions and 37 staff years

proposed for elimination due to further expansion of the controller

in charge (CIC) concept. When the Committee allowed this program

to proceed in 1999, it was with the understanding that a small

group of exceptional controllers would be selected based on objective criteria and appropriately trained for the expanded supervisory

role. Since a 10 percent pay differential is associated with the performance of CIC duties, the agency must guard against the program being established as an entitlement for all controllers. In addition, the agency was expected to formally monitor and objectively

evaluate the effects of the program as supervisory levels decreased.

In October 2000, however, the DOT Inspector General advised the

Committee that FAA was bypassing its own selection process, and

designating virtually all controllers as CIC-eligible. Six months

later, the FAA had neither responded to the IG’s letter nor addressed the underlying concerns. According to the agency, approximately 56 percent of the NATCA bargaining unit have now been

deemed eligible for expanded CIC duties. At the same time, operational errors and runway incursions continue to rise at alarming

rates. These safety measures are directly related to controller proficiency, experience, and supervision. Given these outstanding and

serious issues, the Committee does not provide funding to further

expand the CIC program, or reduce supervisory position levels, in

fiscal year 2002. The Committee will consider a resumption of the

program if the agency is able to demonstrate that further expansion will be cost effective and safe.

Pay equity, air traffic managers.—The Committee’s review this

year indicates that FAA’s decision to limit pay increases for air

traffic managerial, supervisory, and specialist (MS&S) employees

has created huge and disconcerting pay inequities within the air

traffic line of business, as well as recruitment difficulties and low

morale, which are having an impact on the agency’s operations.

These inequities are compounded by agency decisions which allow

employees transferring into headquarters and regional positions

from field facilities to retain their higher salaries. Unfortunately,

just as the agency is nominally trying to move toward a compensation system where pay is based on experience, qualifications, and

duties, in this case those critical factors are not considerations in

pay levels. The Committee continues to believe that pay should be

based on performance and contribution, and that wide swings in

pay for similar jobs will likely lead to severe impacts on morale and

workforce performance. The Committee directs FAA to report to

37

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, not later

than December 15, 2001, on how the agency will resolve these pay

disparities in a way which reestablishes the link between pay, duties, and performance.

Controller retirements.—Although there has been speculation this

year about an impending wave of retirements in the controller

workforce, the Committee sees little evidence to suggest such an

event. Controller retirements have dropped in each of the past two

fiscal years. In addition, focusing on the retirement eligibility date

can be misleading. According to FAA data, controllers work an average of 6.6 years beyond their retirement eligibility date. In addition, the department has the flexibility to propose an extension of

the current mandatory retirement age of 56, which would help alleviate any staffing issues. The FAA currently has almost 650 controllers over the age of 56. In addition, many controllers in the federal contract tower program are above that age.

Cost control.—The Committee remains concerned over the rising

unit cost of providing air traffic services. According to the FAA, in

fiscal year 2002 more than 9,500 air traffic controllers will earn a

salary over $100,000, with the average controller earning $135,000

(93 percent of the FAA Administrator’s salary). The average staff year cost at the agency will be $112,220 in fiscal year 2002, up

$21,810 (24 percent) in the past three years. Given the current

budget constraints, the agency is strongly encouraged to initiate serious cost savings and productivity enhancement measures, in

order to maintain the ability to deliver key services to the public.

Base adjustment.—The Committee bill includes a reduction of

$4,102,000 to remove items from FAA’s base budget which were included for funding in fiscal year 2001, but for which no funding

was requested in fiscal year 2002. These reductions are for RMMS

expansion (¥$350,000); Lawton, OK air traffic services

(¥$1,500,000); and GPS implementation procedures (¥$2,252,000).

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.

Use of credit hours to resolve labor issues.—The Committee has

noted several recent instances where the FAA has settled labor

union grievances by granting an arbitrary number of credit hours

to bargaining unit employees. The Committee believes the agency

needs to revolve grievance directly and in good faith, and not use

its scarce resources to entice unrelated matters to be dropped. It

would be natural for the agency to expect an increasing number of

grievances if employees perceive they will be resolved not through

investigation and negotiation, but through offers of additional benefits or compensation. The Committee directs FAA to discontinue

the practice of granting credit hours, or related benefits, in the settlement of grievances unless such benefits are directly related to

the cause of the grievance.

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.

Centennial of Flight Commission.—The bill includes $750,000 to

continue support for the Centennial of Flight Commission. This is

the same amount as provided for fiscal year 2001.

38

Williams Gateway Airport, AZ.—The Williams Gateway Airport

in Mesa, Arizona is a civilian airport which was converted from

military use and is currently controlled by an FAA-funded contract

air traffic control tower. Although the tower is staffed by FAA personnel, the airport authority has been made responsible for operating and maintaining the FAA-installed equipment. The Committee encourages FAA to assume ownership, operational control,

and maintenance responsibility for all ATC equipment in the control tower at this airport. If this cannot be accomplished, the FAA

should provide a report to the Committee explaining the reasons

for that decision.

Airspace redesign.—Of the funds provided for airspace redesign, the Committee directs FAA to allocate $8,500,000 to further the redesign of the New Jersey/New York metropolitan airspace. This is

the same amount as provided for fiscal year 2001. In addition, the

Committee urges the FAA to work expeditiously to address issues

in the Southwest portion of the national airspace redesign.

Spring/summer 2001 initiative.—As part of the spring/summer

2001 initiative, the FAA has been investigating ‘‘digital glue’’ technology, to put timely and accurate airport and flight status information directly into the hands of passengers. The Committee notes

that this is a continuing problem, as evidenced by testimony during

the Subcommittee’s airline delay hearings this year. The Committee encourages FAA to continue investigating this technology,

using up to $1,300,000 for that purpose, during fiscal year 2002.

AVIATION REGULATION AND CERTIFICATION

The Committee recommends $727,870,000 for aviation regulation and certification, an increase of $32,891,000 (4.7 percent) above the

fiscal year 2001 enacted level.

Base adjustment.—The recommendation makes a reduction of

$3,000,000 to the base budget to reflect a one-time budget item

which was funded in fiscal year 2001, but not continued in fiscal

year 2002.

CIVIL AVIATION SECURITY

The Committee recommends $135,949,000 for civil aviation security, a reduction of $3,352,000 below the fiscal year 2001 enacted

level.

The Committee remains disappointed over management issues

which continue to surround the civil aviation security program. The

organization failed to meet a majority of its performance plan goals

for fiscal year 2000, yet paid significant bonuses to executives. The

Congressionally-directed strategic plan, recently submitted, was little more than a statement of core principles, and offered no indication of planned resources, management focus, or schedules for accomplishment. Results are still slow in deployment of explosive detection systems. In all, last year’s Committee report directed the

agency to address these concerns expeditiously; however, there is

no indication that the agency honored that request. The Committee

cannot continue providing such significant resources in the face of

sustained management problems. The Committee recommendation

includes a staffing adjustment previously described, a reduction to

discretionary activities, and a reduction for a facility security survey which is of questionable need at this time.

39

RESEARCH AND ACQUISITION

The Committee recommends $195,258,000 for research and acquisition, a reduction of $1,416,000 below the budget request and

$5,270,000 (2.8 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.

This activity finances the planning, management, and coordination

of FAA’s research and acquisition programs. The recommendation

includes a staffing adjustment which was described in an earlier

section of this report.

Defense contract audit agency audits.—The Committee is very

displeased to learn that FAA has decreased the number of requested audits by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA).

When this activity was transferred from the OIG to the modal administrations a few years ago, Congress expressed a clear view that

the agencies were responsible for ensuring the timely completion of

necessary DCAA audits. Regrettably, the FAA has allowed its

project managers to avoid these important audits. This is an intolerable situation which cannot be continued. The Committee directs

FAA to request DCAA audits on all acquisition contracts in excess

of $100,000,000, and audits on a sample of at least 15 percent of

all contracts under $100,000,000. The Committee will continue to

monitor this situation, and expects senior FAA management to develop internal tracking systems to ensure that this direction is followed by individual project offices.

Independent government cost estimate.—The Committee directs

FAA to discontinue the practice of allowing private contractors to

prepare the independent government cost estimate for acquisition

projects. This not only represents a conflict of interest, but fails to

protect the government’s fiduciary interest. It is a mockery of the

word ‘‘independent’’ to have the estimate prepared by the same

contractor submitting the proposal itself. The Committee expects

FAA to take consequences on any FAA employee knowingly accepting such an estimate as ‘‘independent’’.

COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

The Committee recommends $12,254,000 for the Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST), $2,452,000 below the budget

request and $254,000 (2.1 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The reduction is based upon the staffing adjustment

previously described.

FINANCIAL SERVICES

The Committee recommends $50,480,000 for financial services,

an increase of $2,036,000 (4.2 percent) above the fiscal year 2001

enacted level and $204,000 below the budget estimate. Adjustments

to the budget estimate include a staffing adjustment previously described (¥$800,000) and transfer of funding for the resource tracking program NAS handoff costs from the ‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ appropriation (+$500,000).

HUMAN RESOURCES

The Committee recommends $67,635,000 for human resources,

$6,881,000 below the budget estimate and $12,771,000 (23.3 percent) above the level provided for fiscal year 2001. The recommendation includes the base transfers assumed in the budget

40

request. The Committee believes the amount recommended is sufficient to finance the agency’s necessary human resource management (HRM) activities. The Committee is concerned that, even

though personnel reform was expected to streamline HRM administrative costs, the opposite seems to have occurred. The scope, activities, and resources of the HRM organization have been growing

without noticeable impact on employee morale, the protection of

training resources, or equity in compensation system development.

Studies of personnel reform indicate that—five years after establishment—the promise and potential of real reform continues to

elude the agency. With this track record, the Committee believes

a slower growth in budgetary resources is justified in order to foster accountability and stronger performance. The Committee believes that this can be accommodated by reducing contracts, organizational development and non-essential training activities, and by

reducing some positions through attrition.

Personnel reform.—In April 1996, at Congressional direction FAA

was allowed to develop its own personnel and compensation systems, to give the agency more flexibility because of its daily interaction with the fast-paced and rapidly-growing aviation industry.

The Secretary of Transportation argued strongly that the agency

needed flexibility to pay people what the job required and to move

them where the work was needed, without the restrictions of standard government personnel procedures. Five years after the effort

began, the Committee concludes that FAA’s personnel reform has

been a failure. The most recent FAA employee attitude survey

showed severe levels of employee dissatisfaction, even as compensation levels have risen to make DOT the highest-paid cabinet level

agency in the Federal Government. Fewer than one in ten employees felt that personnel reform had been successful at eliminating

bureaucracy or helping accomplish FAA’s mission. Fewer than one

in five felt the agency rewards creativity and innovation—even

though personnel reform allows the agency great flexibility in this

area. A review of staffing at air traffic control facilities indicates

that reform has not been used to place employees where they are

needed. And existing pay disparities support the view that pay is

based more upon negotiation than need or individual contribution.

These findings are supported by an independent study conducted

by the National Academy of Public Administration, which found

that FAA hasn’t met many of the key goals of personnel reform.

The Committee believes that Congress should carefully review the

effects of personnel reform leading up to reauthorization of AIR– 21 in fiscal year 2004 to gauge whether the experiment should be

continued.

REGIONAL COORDINATION

The Committee recommends $84,613,000 for regional coordination, a reduction of $6,280,000 below the budget estimate. The recommendation includes a staffing adjustment previously described

(¥$2,100,000); a reduction in National Park overflight tour management plans (¥$6,000,000); and a transfer of funding for NAS

handoff activities at the FAA Aeronautical Center from the ‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ budget (+$1,200,000).

National park overflight tour management plans.—Title VIII of

Public Law 106–181, enacted on April 5, 2000, requires the FAA

41

to establish air tour management plans for any national park or

tribal land whenever a person applies for authority to conduct a

commercial air tour operation over the park. The objective of these

plans is to develop effective measures to mitigate the adverse impacts of air tour operations on natural and cultural resources as

well as enhance visitor experiences. The FAA’s fiscal year 2002 budget included $12,000,000 in funding for two year’s worth of contracts. The Committee’s recommendation includes the necessary

funding for fiscal year 2001, and suggests the FAA request the follow-on funding in next year’s budget, if still necessary at that time. This results in a reduction of $6,000,000 to the budget estimate.

This should not cause delay in development of any plans.

STAFF OFFICES

The Committee recommends $108,776,000 for staff offices, which

is $7,432,000 below the budget estimate and $3,738,000 (3.6 percent) above the level enacted for fiscal year 2001. The recommendation includes a staffing adjustment previously described and an additional reduction to more closely mirror the general rate of inflation, due to budget constraints. The Committee believes these staff

offices should constantly seek ways to streamline their costs, and

notes a number of offices where positions appear excessive.

English language proficiency.—The Committee continues to

strongly support the activities of FAA, the Department of State,

and the International Civil Aviation Organization at improving the

English language proficiency of foreign flightcrews and air traffic

controllers around the globe. The FAA is encouraged to advise the

Committee promptly if funding concerns arise in this program during fiscal year 2002.

ACCOUNTWIDE ADJUSTMENTS

OST assessments.—Even though the Committee directed last

year 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 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 (an activity eliminated in OST’s budget

by this Committee). In fiscal year 2001, FAA is being charged for

an OST delay study ($125,000). The Committee directs FAA not to

pay such charges in the future, and has included a general provision requiring Congressional notification of any new assessment or

reimbursable agreements. The recommendation includes a reduction of $750,000 to reflect the removal of policy-related assessments.

Travel.—Despite Congressional directions, the FAA’s travel budget continues to grow significantly. Operations-funded travel was

$103,900,000 in fiscal year 2000, and is estimated at $122,000,000

in fiscal year 2002. The recommendation allows $117,000,000, still

a significant increase over the fiscal year 2000 level. Field aviation

safety inspectors are exempt from these reductions.

Executive bonuses.—The Committee supports the use of executive

bonuses as a method of rewarding strong achievement and honoring superior performance. However, in the FAA it is not clear

whether the agency is linking the award of bonuses to the attainVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.000 pfrm04 PsN: A279
42

ment of performance plan goals. For example, in fiscal year 2000

the FAA’s largest operating unit achieved none of its five performance plan goals, yet awarded almost $250,000 in bonuses to 42 executives based upon that result. A similar pattern can be seen in

other organizational units. Despite this, the agency paid out over

$1,000,000 in bonuses in fiscal year 2001, compared to an average

of $225,000 for the two previous years. The Committee intends to

hold senior officials accountable in the agency, a result which cannot be achieved if bonuses are handed out indiscriminately. The

Committee recommendation reduces the amount of funding available for bonuses by one-half, which is approximately the level

available prior to implementation of FAA’s new Executive Compensation System in fiscal year 2001.

Vacant executive positions.—At the time of this year’s Committee

hearings, the FAA had 21 unfilled executive positions. The agency

stated that, at any given time during the year, they have an average of 12 unfilled executive positions. These unused funds are

available for reprogramming to other activities. The Committee recommendation eliminates funds for this level of unfilled positions.

This should cause no impact on the agency’s activities, based on

historic hiring levels.

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

2002.

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 2001, and as requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2002 President’s budget.

43

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 2001 1 ....................................................... $2,656,765,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... 2,914,000,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 2,914,000,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. +257,235,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ ............................ 1 Excludes $5,845,000 in across the board reduction.

The Facilities and Equipment (F&E) account 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 research

and development facilities, and other improvements to enhance the

safety and capacity of the airspace system.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,914,000,000

for this program, an increase of $257,235,000 (9.7 percent) above

the level provided for fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget

estimate. The amount proposed is required by Public Law 106–181.

The bill provides that of the total amount recommended, up to

$2,536,900,000 is available for obligation until September 30, 2004,

and up to $377,100,000 (the amount for personnel and related expenses) is available until September 30, 2002. These obligation

availabilities are consistent with past appropriations Acts and the

same as the budget request.

The following table shows the fiscal year 2001 enacted level, the

fiscal year 2002 budget estimate and the Committee recommendation for each of the projects funded by this appropriation:

44


Insert offset folio 014 here 73279.012
45


Insert offset folio 015 here 73279.013
46


Insert offset folio 016 here 73279.014
47

ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

The Committee recommends $768,764,200 for engineering, development, test and evaluation. Adjustments to the budget request are

explained below.

Advanced technology development and prototyping.—The recommendation includes a transfer of airport-related research from

the AIP program (+$7,547,000), a transfer of funds from the free

flight phase two program (+$2,000,000), a transfer from RE&D of

funds for weather experiments and activities at Juneau, Alaska

(+$5,000,000), and additional funding for the systematic study of

reducing the current air traffic control separation standards

(+$1,000,000). During hearings this year, both academic researchers and the President of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association suggested that the current separation standards could be

reduced without adverse safety impact. The Committee notes that

research and simulations of this nature are already conducted in

this budget activity. The recommendation augments funding by

$1,000,000 specifically to analyze this potential. The FAA is directed to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on

Appropriations no later than April 15, 2002 on the results of this

investigation.

Safe flight 21.—The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for this

program, an increase of $8,500,000 above the budget estimate. The

Committee believes that both the Ohio Valley and Capstone

projects are worthy of acceleration, given progress shown to date.

One potential benefit of the safe flight 21 program is the potential for reducing runway incursions by allowing pilots to know, very

precisely, their exact position on an airport. The Committee believes use of this technology should be emphasized. Accordingly,

the FAA is encouraged to disseminate the database of airport diagrams at no cost to manufacturers.

Free flight.—The Committee recommends $235,470,000 for free

flight, the same as the budget estimate for comparable projects.

This is $42,670,000 (22.1 percent) above the $192,800,000 provided

for fiscal year 2001. The Committee has realigned funding between

the two phases of the project, as follows:

phase one:

Activity FY 2002 estimate Committee

recommended

Center/Tracon automation system (CTAS) ................................................................... $42,000,000 $42,000,000

Collaborative decision-making (CDM) ......................................................................... 5,600,000 17,900,000

User request evaluation tool (URET) ........................................................................... 54,800,000 106,000,000

Surface movement advisor (SMA) ............................................................................... 2,000,000 2,000,000

FFP1 integration .......................................................................................................... 16,900,000 24,100,000

Information security ..................................................................................................... 720,000 720,000

IOT&E ........................................................................................................................... 550,000 550,000

Total ............................................................................................................... 122,570,000 193,270,000

phase two:

Activity FY 2002 estimate Committee

recommended

User request evaluation tool (URET) ........................................................................... $51,200,000 ..............................

Integration ................................................................................................................... 7,200,000 ..............................

Collaborative decision-making (CDM) ......................................................................... 12,300,000 ..............................

48

Activity FY 2002 estimate Committee

recommended

TMA .............................................................................................................................. 42,000,000 $42,000,000

Research support ......................................................................................................... 2,000,000 ..............................

IOT&E ........................................................................................................................... 100,000 100,000

Information security ..................................................................................................... 100,000 100,000

Total ............................................................................................................... 114,900,000 42,200,000

Local area augmentation system (LAAS).—The Committee provides total funding of $42,450,000 for continued implementation of

the local area augmentation system (LAAS). This includes a transfer of $17,400,000 from budget activity two and an additional

$8,390,000 to accelerate implementation. The Committee continues

to believe that, if this technology proves its potential, it could provide significant capacity and safety benefits.

Wide area augmentation system (WAAS).—The Committee recommends total funding of $75,900,000 for continued development of

the wide area augmentation system (WAAS). All funding has been

included in this budget activity.

Technical center facilities.—The Committee recommends

$9,500,000. The reduction to the proposed amount of budget growth

is due to budget constraints. The Committee allowance provides an

8 percent increase over fiscal year 2001.

PROCUREMENT OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

The bill includes $1,353,449,800 for the procurement of air traffic

control facilities and equipment.

Aviation weather services improvements.—The Committee believes the amount of funding requested for technical and engineering management is excessive, and therefore recommends a reduction of $1,720,000 below the budget estimate. The recommended

level is $5,782,000 (70.3 percent) above the level provided for fiscal

year 2001.

ATC upgrades, Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, OH.—In

view of the pressing need to increase the nation’s airport capacity,

the Committee seeks to ensure that work on the airport expansion

project at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport continues on an

expedited path. The Committee believes it essential that FAA employ a systems approach to ensure that all F&E projects associated

with this project are carefully planned and managed, so they can

be completed and available when the corresponding airport construction activities are completed and ready for operation.

Terminal air traffic control facilities replacement.—The Committee recommends $150,000,000 for this program. These funds are

to be distributed as follows:

Committee

Location recommended

Las Vegas McCarran, NV ..................................................................... $5,000,000

Fort Wayne International, IN ............................................................... 6,000,000

Stewart Airport, NY .............................................................................. 5,700,000

Cleveland Hopkins, OH ......................................................................... 2,000,000

Continuation of FY01 adds ................................................................... 30,600,000

LaGuardia, NY ....................................................................................... 2,000,000

Boston, MA (Tracon) .............................................................................. 7,066,000

Savannah, GA ........................................................................................ 500,000

Salina, KS ............................................................................................... 560,000

St. Louis, MO (Tracon) .......................................................................... 2,400,000

49

Committee

Location recommended

Corpus Christi, TX ................................................................................. 650,000

Roanoke, VA ........................................................................................... 2,140,000

Newark, NJ ............................................................................................ 1,407,000

Bedford, MA ........................................................................................... 468,000

Vero Beach, FL ...................................................................................... 592,000

Alburquerque, NM ................................................................................. 593,000

Beaumont, TX ........................................................................................ 800,000

Everett, WA ............................................................................................ 1,064,000

Louisville, KY ......................................................................................... 1,600,000

Seattle, WA ............................................................................................ 2,922,000

Richmond, VA ........................................................................................ 2,500,000

Grand Canyon, AZ ................................................................................. 1,500,000

Newport, News, VA ............................................................................... 1,300,000

Port Columbus, OH ............................................................................... 1,229,000

North Las Vegas, NV ............................................................................ 550,000

Wilmington, DE ..................................................................................... 55,000

Phoenix, AZ ............................................................................................ 26,330,000

Seattle, WA (Tracon) ............................................................................. 26,084,000

Manchester, NH ..................................................................................... 7,840,000

Reno, NV ................................................................................................ 1,461,000

Chantilly, VA (Dulles) ........................................................................... 970,000

Abilene, TX ............................................................................................. 1,045,000

Ft. Lauderdale Exec, FL ....................................................................... 638,000

East St. Louis, IL ................................................................................... 572,000

Islip, NY ................................................................................................. 550,000

Oshkosh, WI ........................................................................................... 365,000

Deer Valley, AZ ...................................................................................... 805,000

Swanton, OH .......................................................................................... 824,000

Indianapolis, IN ..................................................................................... 820,000

W. Palm Beach, FL ................................................................................ 175,000

Baltimore, MD ....................................................................................... 175,000

Portland, OR (Tracon) ........................................................................... 75,000

Houston, TX (Tracon) ............................................................................ 75,000

Total ............................................................................................. 150,000,000

Continuation of fiscal year 2001 adds.—In fiscal year 2001, Congress provided first-year funding for needed towers in several locations around the country. The President’s budget neglected to provide the funds to continue these important ongoing efforts. To correct this deficiency, the bill includes $30,600,000 specifically to continue replacement of towers added in fiscal year 2001 at Congressional initiative.

Terminal voice switch replacement (TVSR).—The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the terminal voice switch replacement

(TVSR), an increase of $3,052,500 above the budget estimate.

NAS infrastructure management system (NIMS).—The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for NAS infrastructure management system (NIMS), an increase of $1,900,000 (14.5 percent)

above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and a reduction of

$15,325,100 below the budget estimate.

Voice recorder replacement program (VRRP).—The Committee

recommends $8,000,000 for the voice recorder replacement program

(VRRP), an increase of $4,400,000 above the budget estimate.

Terminal digital radar (ASR–11).—The Committee recommends

$98,520,300 for continued production of the digital airport surveillance radar system (ASR–11). This compares to $69,690,000 provided for fiscal year 2001 and $156,377,500 in the budget estimate.

Since development of the budget request, testing difficulties have

continued to plague this program. The Committee believes the resolution of test problems will cause a significant delay to the current

50

schedule, making it difficult to procure as many additional units in

fiscal year 2002 as intended. Through fiscal year 2001, the FAA

has acquired 22 of these radar systems, only 2 of which will be delivered through the end of fiscal year 2001. The Committee also encourages FAA to develop sound and detailed backup strategies, in

the event that the continuing difficulties require that the program

be restructured.

Control tower/Tracon facilities improvements.—The $3,000,000

added to this program is to continue the cable loop relocation

project at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport in Missouri. In

addition, of the funds provided, $1,000,000 shall be used for the

transfer of notice to airmen (NOTAM) services onto the special use

airspace management system (SAMS). The recent crash of a jet in

Aspen, Colorado may have been due, in part, to the fact that Aspen

tower controllers had not received a NOTAM informing them that

a certain type of instrument approach was prohibited at the airport

at night. Presently, NOTAMs are disseminated by 1950’s-era teletype machines. To ensure that NOTAMs are properly disseminated,

in the short term the FAA should take the central NOTAM processing function and rehost it on the SAMS platform. The FAA

should also give a priority to transitioning from the current, outdated system to a digital platform before the system exceeds its capacity and becomes unsupportable.

Low priority activities.—The Committee has made minor reductions in two low priority activities (terminal radar improvements

and terminal applied engineering) due to budget constraints and in

recognition of internal reprogramming of these funds in past years.

Instrument landing systems establishment.—The Committee recommends $45,932,000, to be distributed as follows:

Committee

Location recommended

ALSF–2 installations ............................................................................. $11,300,000

MALSR installations ............................................................................. 5,800,000

JFK/LaGuardia ILS installations ......................................................... 1,653,000

Install ILS/MALSR, Lonesome Pine, VA ............................................. 1,000,000

Upgrade ILS to category III, Kingston Regional Jetport, NC ............ 3,780,000

Acquire/install ILS, Madison County Executive, AL .......................... 1,500,000

Upgrade ILS, North Bend, OR ............................................................. 4,500,000

Install ILS/localizer/glideslope/MALSR, Mena Intermountain, AR ... 1,400,000

Install ILS, Northeastern Regional Airport, NC ................................. 500,000

Install ILS, Kissimmee Municipal, FL ................................................. 1,400,000

Install ILS, Orlando International 4th runway, FL ........................... 3,000,000

Install ILS/MALSR, Sanford Airport, FL ............................................ 300,000

Install ILS/MALSR, Dekalb County Airport, IN ................................. 974,000

Install ILS runway 13/31, Mineral Wells Municipal, TX ................... 675,000

Install ILS, Dalles Municipal, OR ........................................................ 1,250,000

Install ILS runway 17, Max Westheimer Airport, OK ....................... 3,000,000

Install ILS, Nikolski Airport, AK ......................................................... 1,500,000

Install ILS, Klawok Airport, AK .......................................................... 1,500,000

Install ILS, Elizabethtown Airport, KY ............................................... 900,000

Total ............................................................................................. 45,932,000

Transponder landing system.—The Committee recommends

$3,000,000, the same level as enacted for fiscal year 2001.

Runway visual range (RVR).—The Committee recommends

$7,085,000, including $5,000,000 for continued acquisition of the

next generation runway visual range system and $85,000 for RVR

equipment at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in Minnesota.

51

Approach lighting system improvement program (ALSIP).—The

Committee recommends $28,517,000, to be distributed as follows:

Committee Location recommended

Items in budget estimate ...................................................................... $5,267,000

MALSR installation and procurement ................................................. 10,000,000

Lighting beacon, Powell County Airport, KY ...................................... 150,000

Installation of MALSF, North Las Vegas Airport, NV ....................... 500,000

Medium intensity runway lights, Posey Field, Haleyville, AL .......... 100,000

Runway lighting, rural airports in Alaska .......................................... 6,000,000

ALSF–2 and related, Minneapolis-St. Paul International, MN ......... 6,500,000

Total ............................................................................................. 28,517,000

PROCUREMENT OF NON-ATC FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

The Committee recommends $215,800,000 for the acquisition of

non-air traffic control facilities and equipment, the same as the

budget estimate and $11,865,000 above the level enacted for fiscal

year 2001.

Explosive detection systems.—The Committee recommends

$97,500,000 for this program, the same as the budget estimate. A

comparison of the Committee recommendation to the fiscal year

2001 enacted level and the budget estimate is as follows:

Activity FY 2001

enacted

FT 2002

estimate

Committee

recommended

Bulk EDS Systems ....................................................................................... $40,000,000 $38,000,000 $40,000,000

Trace detection systems ............................................................................. 12,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000

TIP-ready x-ray systems .............................................................................. 22,000,000 12,000,000 22,000,000

Computer-based training systems ............................................................. 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000

Integration ................................................................................................... 21,500,000 33,500,000 21,500,000

SAFPAS ........................................................................................................ 2,000,000 ........................ ........................

Total ............................................................................................... 99,500,000 97,500,000 97,500,000

Last year, the Committee was extremely concerned with FAA’s

lack of success in developing a viable second source for the acquisition of bulk EDS systems and with the inconsistent treatment in

certification and other matters among vendors by the FAA. Therefore, FAA was directed to make funds available in equal amounts

to procure EDS systems from both certified sources. FAA was also

directed to ensure that the timing of contract awards to the two

vendors was paired to the greatest extent practicable. The Committee recognizes that some progress has now been achieved in fostering the viability of a second source of certified EDS systems.

Nevertheless, there remains a need to ensure that this issue is a

high priority with the agency and that this progress can be advanced. Furthermore, there is a continuing need to see that systems are not just acquired in equal amounts, but also deployed on

a timely and equal basis. These systems have been certified by

FAA as meeting their performance specifications and security requirements. It makes no sense to procure them and let them sit in

warehouses. The Committee therefore directs the FAA to continue

providing funds to both certified sources in equal amounts for the

acquisition of systems, to ensure that the timing of such contract

awards is paired to the greatest extent practicable, and to work

more diligently with airlines and airports to deploy systems in the

field on an equal basis.

52

MISSION SUPPORT

The recommendation provides $270,700,000 for mission support

activities, $4,000,000 above the budget estimate. Funding of

$262,830,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001.

Center for advanced aviation systems development (CAASD).—

The recommendation includes a transfer of $4,000,000 from the

RE&D appropriation to unify funds for CAASD in a single budget.

The Committee’s review of the budget justifications leads the Committee to believe that this work is centrally related to activities

performed in this appropriation, and not in RE&D.

PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES

The recommendation provides $377,100,000, an increase of

$54,447,400 (16.9 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level

and the same as the budget estimate. This appropriation finances

the installation and commissioning of new equipment and modernization of FAA facilities.

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 2001 1 ....................................................... $187,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... 187,781,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 191,481,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. +4,481,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ +3,700,000 1 Excludes $411,000 in across the board reduction.

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.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends $191,481,000, an increase of

$4,481,000 (2.3 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.

A table showing the fiscal year 2001 enacted level, the fiscal year

2002 budget estimate, and the Committee recommendation follows:

Program name FY 2001 enacted FY 2002 estimate

Committee

recommended

System Development and Infrastructure .................................................... $17,414,000 $21,727,000 $13,450,000

System planning & resource management ....................................... 1,164,000 1,458,000 1,200,000

Technical laboratory facility .............................................................. 12,250,000 12,545,000 12,250,000

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development ......................... 4,000,000 5,143,000 0

Information security ........................................................................... 0 2,581,000 0

Weather ....................................................................................................... 24,806,000 28,368,000 21,668,000

53

Program name FY 2001 enacted FY 2002 esti- mate

Committee

recommended

National laboratory program .............................................................. 16,615,000 0 0

In-house support ................................................................................ 4,391,000 0 0

Center for Wind, Ice & Fog ................................................................ 700,000 0 0

Juneau, AK ......................................................................................... 3,100,000 0 0

Weather program ............................................................................... 0 28,368,000 21,668,000

Aircraft Safety Technology .......................................................................... 62,679,000 53,223,000 60,223,000

Aircraft systems fire safety ............................................................... 4,750,000 0 0

Advanced materials/structural safety ............................................... 2,797,000 2,974,000 4,974,000

Propulsion and fuel systems ............................................................. 8,200,000 5,168,000 5,168,000

Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research ..................................... 4,109,000 4,150,000 4,150,000

Aging aircraft ..................................................................................... 33,384,000 27,111,000 32,111,000

Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research ............................. 2,782,000 2,794,000 2,794,000

Aviation safety risk analysis ............................................................. 6,657,000 5,784,000 5,784,000

Fire research and safety .................................................................... 0 5,242,000 5,242,000

System Security Technology ........................................................................ 54,520,000 50,325,000 44,511,000

Explosives and weapons detection .................................................... 42,606,000 38,438,000 32,624,000

Aircraft hardening .............................................................................. 4,307,000 4,640,000 4,640,000

Airport security technology integration .............................................. 2,462,000 2,084,000 2,084,000

Aviation security human factors ....................................................... 5,145,000 5,163,000 5,163,000

Human Factors & Aviation Medicine .......................................................... 24,100,000 25,927,000 24,027,000

Flight deck/maintenance/system integration human factors ........... 10,100,000 9,906,000 9,906,000

Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors ........................... 8,000,000 9,900,000 8,000,000

Aeromedical research ......................................................................... 6,000,000 6,121,000 6,121,000

Environment and Energy ............................................................................. 3,481,000 7,602,000 27,602,000

Strategic Partnerships ................................................................................ 0 609,000 0

Total appropriation ..................................................................................... 187,000,000 187,781,000 191,481,000

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

The Committee recommends $13,450,000 for system development

and infrastructure.

System planning and resource management.—The Committee

recommendation provides approximately the same level of funding

as provided in fiscal year 2001. The reduction is necessary to fund

higher priority activities.

Technical laboratory facility.—The recommendation holds funding to the fiscal year 2001 level due to budget constraints, a reduction of $295,000 below the budget estimate.

Information security.—For the second consecutive year, the Committee recommendation deletes this new initiative due to budget

constraints, a reduction of $2,581,000 below the budget estimate.

Center for advanced aviation systems development (CAASD).— The $4,000,000 requested for this activity has instead been funded

under ‘‘Facilities and equipment’’.

WEATHER

The Committee recommends $21,668,000 to address the effects of

hazardous weather on aviation. Funding for weather-related activities at Juneau, Alaska has been transferred to ‘‘Facilities and

equipment’’ at the level of $5,000,000.

AIRCRAFT SAFETY TECHNOLOGY

The Committee recommends $60,223,000 for aircraft safety technology, $7,000,000 above the budget estimate and $2,456,000 below

the level provided last year.

54

Advanced materials/structural safety.—Of the funds provided,

$2,000,000 is to continue activities of the specialty metals processing consortium. The consortium is composed of companies which

use or produce superalloys and titanium alloys, including three aircraft engine manufacturers. The focus of their work is on mitigation of melt-related defects in jet engines. FAA funding is matched

dollar for dollar by the consortium. The Committee continues to

value this work and its contribution to aviation research and safety.

Aging aircraft.—Of the funds provided, $5,000,000 is only for

equipment upgrades at the National Institute for Aviation Research. A similar amount was provided for fiscal year 2001.

SYSTEM SECURITY TECHNOLOGY

The Committee recommendation provides $44,511,000 for system

security technology, which is $5,814,000 below the budget estimate.

Problems with FAA’s management of its civil aviation security program have been discussed in a previous section of this report.

HUMAN FACTORS AND AVIATION MEDICINE

The Committee recommendation provides $24,027,000, which is

$1,900,000 below the budget request and approximately the same

as the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The reduction holds funding

for ‘‘Air traffic control/airways facilities human factors’’ to the fiscal

year 2001 level.

ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

The recommendation provides $27,602,000, an increase of

$20,000,000 above the budget estimate. This program researches

ways to mitigate the impact of airport noise around the country.

Aircraft noise research.—The Committee is concerned that necessary airport infrastructure cannot be expanded in some locations

due to understandable community concerns over aircraft noise.

Further, aircraft noise results in millions of federal dollars being

spent each year on mitigation measures, diverting funds which

could be applied to capacity enhancement or safety projects. Therefore, the Committee has increased FAA’s noise research budget by

$20,000,000 to speed up the introduction of lower noise aircraft

technologies. The Committee expects FAA to work directly with the

National Aeronautics and Space Administration to advance aircraft

engine noise research.

55

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Liquidation of contract

authorization

Limitation on obligations

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ................... $3,200,000,000 ($3,200,000,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................... 1,800,000,000 (3,300,000,000)

Recommended in the bill ................................ 1,800,000,000 (3,300,000,000)

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .............. ¥1,400,000,000 (+100,000,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ............ (—) (—) 1 Excludes $27,697,000 in across the board reductions.

The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of

$1,800,000,000 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 $1,400,000,000

below the level enacted for fiscal year 2001.

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The bill includes a limitation on obligations of $3,300,000,000 for

fiscal year 2002. This is the same as the President’s budget request

and $100,000,000 above the fiscal year 2001 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 fiscal year 2000 and 2001 levels follows:

Fiscal year—

2000 2001 2002

Formula grants:

Primary airports ............................................................... $556,348,911 $1,067,900,000 $1,053,800,000

Cargo service airports ..................................................... 55,519,140 94,200,000 97,300,000

Alaska (sec. 4714(e)) ...................................................... 10,672,557 21,100,000 21,100,000

States (general aviation) ................................................. 342,368,030 628,000,000 648,700,000

Carryover (from formula grants) ..................................... 135,525,867 132,600,000 132,600,000

Subtotal, formula grants ............................................. 1,100,434,505 1,943,800,000 1,953,500,000

Discretionary grants:

Discretionary set-aside: noise compatibility ................... 206,719,492 315,300,000 334,800,000

Discretionary set-aside: military airport program ........... 24,319,940 37,100,000 39,400,000

Discretionary set-aside: reliever ...................................... .............................. 6,100,000 6,500,000

Discretionary set-aside: C/S/S/N ..................................... 282,719,305 426,600,000 453,000,000

Remaining discretionary .................................................. 89,239,768 142,200,000 151,000,000

Small airports (returned entitlements) ............................ 142,204,990 269,000,000 305,500,000

Subtotal, discretionary grants ..................................... 745,203,495 1,196,300,000 1,290,200,000

Administration ........................................................................... 54,362,000 59,900,000 56,300,000

FAA reduction ............................................................................ ¥45,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Total ............................................................................. 1,945,000,000 3,200,000,000 3,300,000,000

56

DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

Within the overall obligation limitation in this bill,

$1,273,800,000 is available for discretionary grants to airports.

This is $77,500,000 more than provided for fiscal year 2001. Within

this obligation limitation, the Committee encourages that priority

be given to grant applications involving further development of the

following airports:

State Airport Project

AK ................. Pribilof Islands Airports ............................ Pave runways.

AL .................. Andalusia/Opp Municipal Airport .............. Runway/taxiway repairs.

AL .................. Auburn-Opelika Municipal Airport ............. Construct airport access road.

AL .................. Bay Minette Municipal Airport .................. Runway extension, access road; aircraft parking apron.

AL .................. Birmingham International Airport ............. Purchase homes left facing or isolated by airport construction

or noise acquisition.

AL .................. Decator Pryor Field .................................... Land acquisition; road relocation; aircraft parking apron improvements; runway extension.

AL .................. Dothan Regional Airport ............................ Runway resurfacing, demolition of old terminal, security fencing.

AL .................. Eufaula Municipal Airport ......................... Construct parallel taxiway.

AL .................. Fairhope Municipal Airport ........................ Runway replacement & conversion of existing runway to a

taxiway.

AL .................. Greenville Municipal Airport ...................... Runway extension; taxiway construction; apron improvements.

AL .................. Huntsville International Airport ................. Phase III of air cargo apron expansion, including the grade,

base, pave & drainage: Extension of runway 18L–36R by

4,600 ft.

AL .................. Jack Edwards Municipal Airport ................ Land acquisition; taxiway widening; drainage impovement.

AL .................. Madison County Executive Airport ............. Land acquisition.

AL .................. Monroe County Airport ............................... Construct parallel taxiway, including land acquisition & AWOS

system.

AL .................. Montgomery Regional Airport .................... Widen taxiway, security upgrades, widen/strengthen runway,

terminal renovation.

AL .................. Northwest Alabama Regional Airport ........ Taxiway & aircraft parking apron rehabilitation.

AL .................. Pell City, St. Clair County Airport ............. Runway/taxiway extension.

AL .................. Posey Field Airport ..................................... Engineering and construction for runway overlay.

AL .................. Prattville Municipal Airport ....................... Runway, aircraft parking apron overlay, airport access road.

AL .................. Rankin-Fite Airport .................................... New full-length parallel taxiway; lighting system; land acquisition; NEXWOS; ILS.

AL .................. Richard Arthur-Fayette Field ..................... Improve & extend runway; install ILS; improve runway markings & fencing.

AL .................. Russellville Airport .................................... Land acquisition; runway extension.

AL .................. St. Elmo Airport ......................................... Aircraft parking apron expansion.

AL .................. Troy Municipal Airport ............................... Wildlife security fencing; runway/taxiway rehabilitation.

AR ................. Benton Airport relocation .......................... Relocation of airport to new, donated site.

AR ................. Jonesboro Municipal Airport ...................... Runway extension.

AR ................. Memphis International Airport .................. Expansion of taxiway Yankee.

AR ................. Saline County/Watts Field ......................... Engineering and construction of replacement airport.

CA ................. Meadows Field ........................................... Taxiway construction, new terminal & extension of runway 30L.

CA ................. Santa Barbara Airport ............................... Extend U.S. Forest Service ramp and construct new taxiway.

CA ................. Stockton Metropolitan Airport .................... Replacement of runway lighting circuits; reconstruct GA apron;

reconstruct taxiway B shoulders.

CA ................. Stockton Metropolitan Airport East ........... Construction of cargo apron and connector taxiways.

CO ................. Denver International Airport ...................... Construction of new runway.

CO ................. Telluride Regional Airport .......................... Acquire land to widen runway safety areas.

FL .................. Inverness Airport ....................................... Runway lengthening and widening; construction of new parallel taxiway.

FL .................. Orlando International Airport .................... Implement necessary wildlife-attractant mitigation.

FL .................. Panama City-Bay County Airport .............. Master plan and site preparation for airport relocation.

FL .................. St. Petersburg-Clearwater International ... Completion of runway project.

GA ................. Middle Georgia Regional Airport ............... Extend taxiway; construct new apron; relocate perimeter fencing.

GA ................. Atlanta Hartsfield International ................ Construction of fifth runway.

IA .................. Eastern Iowa Airport .................................. Reconstruction of T hanger taxiway and GA aprons.

IL ................... DeKalb Taylor Municipal Airport ................ Reconstruction of taxiway; replace lighting system; acquire 6.5

acres for ODAL system; environmental assessment for runway extension.

57

State Airport Project

IL ................... Lewis University Airport ............................. New apron construction.

IL ................... Palwaukee Airport ...................................... Reconstruction & widening of runway.

IL ................... South Suburban Airport ............................. Complete EIS.

IL ................... St. Louis Downtown Airport ....................... Acquisition of 40 acres of land to improve airfield clearance.

IL ................... Taylorville Municipal Airport ...................... Build crosswind runway that meets federal standards.

IN .................. Anderson Municipal Airport ....................... Taxiway extension; various safety improvements.

IN .................. Gary/Chicago Airport ................................. Expansion of the general use apron.

KS ................. Ottawa Municipal Airport .......................... Taxiway improvements—widening/resurfacing.

KS ................. Wichita Mid-Continent Airport ................... Construction of taxiway AAAA.

KY ................. Ashland-Body Co. Airport .......................... Taxiway lights, asphalt replacement.

KY ................. Barkley Regional Airport ............................ New taxiway.

KY ................. Blue Grass Field ........................................ Expansion of air carrier ramp.

KY ................. Bowman Field ............................................ Construct air ambulance facility.

KY ................. Capital City Airport ................................... Improve, extend, and strengthen runway; add apron.

KY ................. Cynthiana-Harrison County Airport ........... Runway improvement, apron overlay, & lighting.

KY ................. Elizabethtown Airport ................................ Runway extension.

KY ................. Georgetown-Scott County Airport .............. Apron extension/overlay, strengthen.

KY ................. Glasgow Airport ......................................... Construct helicopter pad for air ambulance.

KY ................. Goodall Field .............................................. Widen runway; add apron; extend runway.

KY ................. Harlan County Airport ................................ Runway extension.

KY ................. Louisville International Airport .................. Reconstruction of taxiway Lima; Acquire properties surrounding

airport & relocate residents.

KY ................. Madison County Airport ............................. Runway safety area & taxiway.

KY ................. Madisonville Airport ................................... Runway extension.

KY ................. Morehead-Rowan County Airport ............... Conduct environmental assessment.

KY ................. Mt. Sterling-Montgomery Airport ............... New taxiway; widen runway.

KY ................. Owensboro-Daviess County Regional ........ Emergency equipment.

KY ................. Princeton/Caldwell County ......................... Runway extension.

KY ................. Samuels Field ............................................ Construct new taxiway and new fencing.

KY ................. Somerset Airport ........................................ Grading, draining & paving a partial parallel taxiway, apron,

& access road.

KY ................. Williamsburg/Whitley County Airport ......... Grade & drain for 5,500 ft. runway.

LA .................. Ascension-St. James Airport-Lousiana Regional Airport.Runway extension.

LA .................. Baton Rouge Airport .................................. Update master plan; completion of perimeter road; reconstruct

runway 4L/22R; noise mitigation.

LA .................. Hammond Municipal Airport ..................... Land acquisition for runway extension.

LA .................. Houma-Terrebonne Airport ......................... Runway upgrades.

LA .................. Lafayette Regional Airport ......................... Refurbish existing terminal & adjacent ramp, air cargo, &

maintenance facility; non-revenue parking areas; commuter

walkways; runway 11/29 subsidence.

LA .................. Louisiana Airport Authority ........................ Examine feasibility of new Southeast Louisiana regional airport; assist in EIS funding & finalize site selection.

MD ................ Baltimore-Washington International ......... Runway and taxiway improvements.

ME ................. Northern Maine Regional ........................... Construction of new hanger.

MI .................. Cherry Capital Airport ............................... New terminal.

MI .................. Detroit-Metropolitan Wayne County Airport Terminal redevelopment, construct taxiway, runway rehabilitation; equipment upgrade.

MI .................. Howell Livingston County Airport .............. Construction of new runway.

MI .................. Otsego Regional Airport ............................ Airway strengthening & widening.

MN ................ Minneapolis-St. Paul International ........... Noise mitigation.

MO ................ Kennett Memorial ...................................... Construction of new runway.

MO ................ Lambert St. Louis International ................ W–1W expansion project.

MO ................ Lee’s Summit Municipal Airport ................ Runway extension.

MS ................. Golden Triangle Regional Airport .............. Runway/taxiway lighting system; taxiway overlay & crash fire

rescue roadway construction; GA access road.

MS ................. Gulfport-Biloxi Regional Airport ................ Acquire land for runway extension.

MS ................. Jackson International ................................ Air cargo center phase I, including concrete apron, taxiway,

access and tug road.

MS ................. Philadelphia Municipal Airport .................. 20,000 square yard apron expansion.

NC ................. Andrews-Murphy Airport ............................ Runway extension; taxiway & safety area improvements; land

acquisitions for approaches.

NC ................. Concord Regional Airport .......................... Land acquisition, design and construction of runway extension.

NC ................. Harnett County Airport .............................. Runway extension.

NC ................. Piedmont Triad International Airport ........ Construct new parallel runway with connecting taxiways.

NC ................. Stanly County Airport ................................ Apron improvements, fuel farm relocation, security fencing.

58

State Airport Project

ND ................. Bismarck Municipal Airport ....................... Construct new terminal; expand parking.

ND ................. Minot International Airport ........................ Reconstruction of primary runway.

NE ................. Central Nebraska Regional Airport ........... Runway reconstruction; reconstruction of 4 taxiways.

NM ................ Dona Ana County Airport ........................... Widening & strengthening of runway, taxiway, & apron.

NM ................ Double Eagle II Aiport ............................... Runway extension and strengthening.

NV ................. Henderson Executive Airport ...................... Reimbursement for land acquisition-purchase airport, construct runways 17R/35L & 17L/35R.

NV ................. McCarran International Airport ................. Reconstruct/rehabilitate apron pavements at terminal 1; construct taxiway Z; reconstruct/rehabilitate apron pavements

at terminal 1.

NV ................. North Las Vegas Airport ............................ Terminal apron rehabilitation; pavement reconstruction; Construct runway 12L/30R & taxiway; land acquisition for airport expansion.

NV ................. Reno Stead Airport .................................... Overlay taxiway E—north end.

NV ................. Reno/Tahoe International Airport .............. Airfield signage improvements, phase II; part 150 noise insulation; part 150 property acquisition; runway 16L/34R &

16R/34L.

NY ................. Buffalo Niagara International Airport ....... Acquisition & demolition of Buffalo Airport Center; design &

construction of runway safety improvements; remain-overnight apron expansion and deicing area.

NY ................. Columbia County Airport ........................... Rehabilitation of access road & taxiway.

NY ................. Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport ................. Rehabilitation of taxiways B, D, & E.

NY ................. Greater Rochester International ................ Terminal improvements; construction of new parallel taxiway;

taxiway extension; runway safety area improvements.

NY ................. Lake Placid Airport .................................... Rehabilitation of taxiway.

NY ................. North Country Airport ................................ Assess access needs and identify constraints and improvements needed.

NY ................. Saratoga County Airport ............................ Construction of runway 14–32.

NY ................. Schroon Lake Airport ................................. Construction of apron & taxiway.

NY ................. Sullivan County International Airport ........ Runway safety area improvements.

NY ................. Ticonderoga Municipal Airport-13 ............. Reconstruction of runway 2–20.

NY ................. Westchester County Airport ....................... Design & construction of deicing facility.

OH ................. Akron-Canton Regional Airport .................. Extension & safety upgrade of runway 1/19.

OH ................. Champaign County Airport ........................ Runway extension & power line relocation.

OH ................. Cleveland Hopkins International Airport ... Noise mitigation—regional soundproofing.

OH ................. Pickaway County Memorial Airport ............ Runway & taxiway extension.

OH ................. Rickenbacker International Airport ............ Various projects.

OH ................. Toledo Express Airport ............................... Acquisition of quick response fire vehicle & snow removal

equipment; construction of new public aircraft parking

aprons.

OK ................. Bartlesville Municipal ................................ Various improvements.

OK ................. Stillwater Airport ....................................... Runway extension.

OR ................. Redmond Airport ........................................ Terminal expansion.

PA ................. Bradford Regional Airport ......................... Construction of runway safety area; deicing facility & equipment.

PA ................. DuBois-Jefferson County Airport ................ Rehabilitate 3 taxiways; improve runway & apron; acquire

snow removal equipment & ARFF vehicle.

PA ................. Erie International Airport ........................... Runway extension.

PA ................. Jimmy Stewart Airport ............................... Construct new runway.

PA ................. Punxsutawney Airport ................................ Construction of parallel taxiway; acquire aerial easements on

adjacent private property; purchase snow removal equipment.

PA ................. Venango Regional Airport .......................... Upgrade runway & safety improvements.

SC ................. Anderson Regional Airport ......................... Runway extension.

TN ................. Memphis International Airport .................. Expansion of taxiway Yankee.

TN ................. Upper Cumberland Regional Airport ......... Apron expansion, taxiway.

TX .................. Abilene Regional Airport ............................ Taxiway extension, entrance boulevard, aircraft parking ramp.

TX .................. Brownsville/South Padre Island International Airport.Extend taxiway G; terminal ramp extension—phase II; flood

control—phase III; EIS; reconstruction of taxiway H; runway

extension planning.

TX .................. City of Laredo Airport ................................ Land acquisition, RPZ, noise & development.

TX .................. Denton Municipal Airport .......................... Taxiway realignment; EIS for main runway extension.

TX .................. Fort Worth Alliance Airport ........................ Extension of 2 runways.

TX .................. Sugar Land Municipal Airport ................... Construction of new airport; phase I—access taxiway to GA

development, apron & taxiway.

TX .................. Terrell Municipal Airport ............................ Extend & overlay runway; reconstruct & expand aprons; install

approach aids.

59

State Airport Project

TX .................. Valley International Airport ....................... Reconstruct & relocate Rio Hondo Road south of the airport;

purchase 176.5 acres; improve drainage around runway.

UT ................. Ogden-Hinckley Airport .............................. Runway rehabilitation.

VA ................. Breaks Interstate Regional Airport ............ Develop airport master plan & completion of environmental

assessment for new airport.

VA ................. New Lee County Airport ............................. Construction of runway, taxiway, apron, & airport access road.

VA ................. Newport News/Williamsburg International

Airport.

Design & construction of concrete apron & taxiway.

VA ................. Richmond International Airport ................. Taxiway A extension.

VA ................. Roanoke Regional Airport .......................... Purchase 2 ARFF trucks and 3 glycol vacuum trucks; purchase

aviation easements from homeowners in a portion of the

DNL 65–69db noise impaced area; rehabilitate GA area,

phase II; relocate/rehabilitate taxiway E; rehabilitate runway

15/33.

VA ................. Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.Construction of storm drainage improvements; reconstruction

of terminal A apron and southwest foundation.

VA ................. Twin County Airport ................................... Rehabilitation & expansion of runway & apron.

VA ................. Washington Dulles International Airport ... Apron paving, construction of cargo apron, taxiway improvements & construction of crossfield taxiway.

VI .................. Rohlsen Airport .......................................... Runway extension.

WI .................. Chippewa Valley Regional Airport ............. Construct 816 foot runway safety area to meet FAA requirements.

WI .................. La Crosse Municipal Airport ...................... Reconstruct taxiways B and C; update airport electrical system; replace perimeter fence.

WI .................. Rock County Airport ................................... Runway extension.

WI .................. Wittman Regional ...................................... Land acquisition for safety improvements.

WV ................. Richwood City Airport ................................ Various improvements.

WV ................. Jackson County Airport .............................. Various improvements.

WV ................. Upshur County Airport ............................... Runway extension.

San Jose International Airport, CA.—The Committee strongly

commends FAA for the agency’s efforts to date in assisting San

Jose International Airport in its efforts to construct an additional

air carrier runway and to address noise mitigation concerns. The

Committee encourages the agency to give similar priority to assisting San Jose in constructing an automated people mover system

linking the airport to the city’s light rail system and in making

other improvements to the terminal. The Committee encourages

FAA to give high priority to expediting funding requests and environmental reviews related to these improvements.

Southeast Louisiana regional airport.—The Committee encourages FAA to assist in efforts to examine the feasibility of building

a new regional airport for southeast Lousiana, including the environmental impact statement and final site selection.

Stewart International Airport.—The Committee recognizes the

seriousness of air traffic congestion in the New York City metropolitan region and directs the Federal Aviation Administration to

report on how Stewart International Airport in Newburgh, New

York, can be better utilized to serve the region’s growing air traffic

needs. As part of this report, the Federal Aviation Administration

should examine needed airport facility improvements at Stewart

and options for increasing the availability of transportation from

Stewart into New York City.

ADMINISTRATION

The bill provides that, within the overall obligation limitation,

$56,300,000 is available for administration of the airports program

by the FAA. Prior to fiscal year 2001, these expenses were included

in the FAA’s operating budget. The recommendation does not apVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.001 pfrm04 PsN: A279
60

prove the proposal to transfer airport-related research to this appropriation. This activity remains funded under ‘‘Facilities and

equipment.’’ Proposed contract increases have been reduced by onehalf.

CONTRIBUTION TO ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE PROGRAM

For the second consecutive year, the Committee does not approve

the proposal to earmark $10,000,000 of AIP funding for the ‘‘Essential air service’’ (EAS) program. Congress directed FAA to finance

the EAS program out of collections from overflight fees, which the

agency advocated. Since that time, however, the agency has been

unsuccessful at collecting the full amount of anticipated overflight

fees. The Committee does not believe that airports around the

country should suffer due to FAA’s inability to structure a viable

overflight fee program. Further discussion of this topic is found

under ‘‘Office of the Secretary’’.

SMALL COMMUNITY AIR SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PILOT PROGRAM

The bill includes a provision specifying that $10,000,000 from the

Small Airports fund shall be used for the Small Community Air

Service Development Pilot Program authorized by section 203 of

Public Law 106–181. This program, authorized at $27,500,000 in

fiscal year 2002, is designed 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 believes this program fits well within the

overall scope and responsibility of the AIP program, whose mission

includes development and promotion of a national system of integrated airports. The small airport fund is financed by AIP entitlements which, by law, are returned when a larger airport approves

or raises additional funding through passenger facility charges

(PFCs). In effect, as larger airports access other sources of financing available to them, their AIP entitlement funds are redirected

to small airports which do not have the potential to raise funds

from other sources. The Committee believes this new pilot program

fits well within the purpose of the small airport fund.

PASSENGER FACILITY CHARGES

Passenger facility charges (PFCs) are a significant, and growing,

source of capital financing for larger airports. Public Law 106–181

allowed airports to raise their maximum PFC from $3.00 to $4.50,

and these additional revenues are just beginning to be collected at

many airports. By the end of fiscal year 2001, the FAA estimates

that 85 to 297 PFC-collecting airports around the country will have

raised their PFC to the maximum level of $4.50, and 150 will have

done so by the end of fiscal year 2002. PFC collections are estimated at $2.2 billion in fiscal year 2002, compared to an estimated

$1.65 billion without the recent increase in the maximum tax rate.

These funds are approved by the FAA and used for capital improvements at airports in addition to local bond financing and AIP

grants provided in this bill.

61

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, 2001, 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.

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

Rescission, fiscal year 2001 ............................................................... ¥$579,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... ¥331,000,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ¥301,000,000

Bill compared with:

Rescission, fiscal year 2001 ........................................................ ¥278,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ ¥30,000,000

The bill includes a rescission of $301,000,000 in contract authority. This budget authority was made available in P.L. 106–181 for

obligation during fiscal year 2002. However, since such funds are

above the obligation limitation for that year, they are not available

for obligation and are therefore available for rescission. This recommendation will have no programmatic impact, since the funding

is not currently available for use in the AIP program. Furthermore,

since AIP authorized funding for fiscal years 2001 through 2003 is

guaranteed by law and cannot be reduced in the appropriations

process, the fiscal year 2002 funds cannot be used to address any

shortfalls in those years.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2002 PROGRAM

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. The highway category obligations are capped at $27,767,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.

If appropriations action forces highway obligations to exceed this

level, the resulting difference in outlays is charged to the non-deVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.001 pfrm04 PsN: A279
62

fense discretionary spending category. In addition, 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. Additional resources provided by

this automatic spending machanism are called revenue-aligned

budget authority (RABA).

The Committee’s recommendation does not exceed the levels

guaranteed by TEA–21 as amended by the Motor Carrier Safety

Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA). The following table summarizes

the program levels within the Federal Highway Administration for

fiscal year 2001 enacted, the fiscal year 2002 budget request and

the Committee’s recommendation:

Program 2001 enacted 2002 request Recommended

in the bill

Federal-aid highways .............................................................. 1$26,603,806,000 $27,150,993,000 $27,197,693,000

Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) ............................. 3,058,000,000 4,543,000,000 4,543,000,000

RABA transfer 2 ....................................................................... ................................ ¥22,837,000 ¥23,896,000

Obligation limitation adjustment ........................................... ................................ ¥107,999,000 ..............................

Exempt obligations ................................................................. 1,068,926,000 954,592,000 954,592,000

Total ........................................................................... 30,730,732,000 32,517,749,000 32,671,389,000

Emergency relief supplemental .............................................. 3720,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Miscellaneous appropriations ................................................. 4606,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Miscellaneous highway projects ............................................. 51,424,963,000 .............................. ..............................

Total ........................................................................... 2,030,963,000 .............................. ..............................

Total ........................................................................... 33,481,695,000 32,517,749,000 32,671,389,000

1 Excludes $65,255,148 reduction pursuant to Public Law 106–554, section 1403, and transfer of $375,000 to the Federal Motor Carrier

Safety Administration (FMCSA) pursuant to section 310 of Public Law 106–346. 2 Reflects amount of RABA to be distributed to FMCSA pursuant to section 110 of title 23, U.S.C. Amount is shown in the FMCSA portion of

the budget for presentation purposes. 3 Excludes a reduction of $1,584,000 pursuant to Public Law 106–554, section 1403. 4 Excludes a reduction of $1,333,200 pursuant to Public Law 106–554, section 1403. 5 Excludes a reduction of $3,168,139 pursuant to Public Law 106–554, section 1403. Also excludes $15,100,000 appropriated in Public Law 106–554, sections 1109, 1121 and 1128.

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Limitation, fiscal year 2001 1 ............................................................. ($295,119,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... (317,693,000)

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... (311,837,000)

Bill compared with:

Limitation, fiscal year 2001 ........................................................ (+16,718,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ (¥5,856,000) 1Does not reflect a reduction of $649,000 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554 in across the

board reductions.

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 2002 costs related to highway

research, development and technology are included under a separate limitation.

The Committee recommends a limitation of $311,837,000. This

level is sufficient to fund 2,422 FTEs.

63

Legislated set-asides.—The budget request included a number of

legislated set-asides within the administrative expenses limitation.

The Committee has not included these items in the bill under specific set-asides, but has instead addressed them in this accompanying report.

The recommended level assumes the following adjustments to the

budget request:

Deny increases for employee development ....................................... ¥$4,330,000

Deny funding for five new FTE for the Transportation Infrastructure and Innovative Financing Act office ..................................... ¥500,000

Deny increase for information technology equipment ..................... ¥2,529,000

Elimate funding for DOD trade collections data program .............. ¥1,616,000

Increase funding for environmental streamlining ........................... +1,419,000

Increase funding to reflect 4.6% pay raise ....................................... +1,700,000

Employee development.—Due to budget constraints, the Committee has denied the request for increases of $4,330,000 for workforce development activities. The committee has provided

$2,500,000, the same level as provided in fiscal year 2001.

New positions.—The Committee has denied the request for five

new FTE for the Transportation Infrastructure and Innovative Financing Act office. The Committee believes that FHWA can absorb

these minor staffing adjustments.

Information technology.—The Committee has deferred increases

in information technology activities and equipment totaling

$2,529,000 in fiscal year 2002 due to budget constraints. This action will not have a negative impact on the base program.

Environmental streamlining.—The budget request included a

total of $15,081,000 for environmental streamlining initiatives, of

which $4,581,000 is proposed from the limitation on administrative

expenses, and $10,500,000 is proposed as a set-aside from administrative balances. The Committee recommendation includes a total

of $6,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 for environmental streamlining

initiatives within the limitation on administrative expenses. In addition, a minimum of $2,000,000 has been provided under FHWA’s

surface transportation research program. The Committee directs

FHWA to provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report, not later than January 2, 2002, summarizing

FHWA’s streamlining efforts. The report should include specific examples of FHWA activities that have helped streamline the environmental process.

Department of Defense trade collections data program.—The

Committee has eliminated funds for the Department of Defense

trade collections data program. DOT is no longer involved in this

initiative.

Pay Raise.—The Committee has provided funding consistent with

a 4.6 percent pay raise.

Border safety inspectors and safety audits.—The Committee recommendation provides a set aside of $13,911,000 from administrative expenses for U.S./Mexico border safety initiatives. Of this

amount, $9,911,000 is for 80 new federal border inspectors, five bilingual lawyers, and 23 trailers to house border inspectors. An additional $4,000,000 will fund safety audits on Mexican motor carriers. The administration plans to meet the North American Free

Trade Agreement requirements in January 2002 by fully opening

the border to Mexican motor carriers. These funds will help ensure

64

that foreign motor carriers entering into and operating within the

U.S. are safe.

Other proposals.—The budget request included several proposals

which are not included in the Committee’s recommendation. These

proposals include a set-aside from administrative balances: (1) an

additional $19,000,000 for various transportation research programs; (2) $6,000,000 for the nationwide global positioning system;

and (3) an additional $30,000,000 for the national corridor planning

and border infrastructure program. The Committee has not approved these proposals.

LIMITATION ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

Limitation, fiscal year 2001 1 ............................................................. (—)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 1 ..................................................... (—)

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ($447,500,000)

Bill compared with:

Limitation, fiscal year 2001 ........................................................ (+447,500,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ (+447,500,000) 1Resources available in fiscal year 2001 and requested in fiscal year 2002 are assumed within the federalaid highway obligation limitation in the budget request for fiscal year 2002.

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 $447,500,000. This limitation is consistent with

the provisions of TEA–21 and mirrors the House-passed fiscal year

2001 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The Committee does not provide an additional

$25,000,000 for research and technology programs requested in the

budget to be funded from set asides from administrative expenses.

TEA–21 authorizes $447,500,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the following transportation research programs:

Surface transportation research ........................................................... $101,000,000

Technology deployment program .......................................................... 45,000,000

Training and education ......................................................................... 19,000,000

Bureau of transportation statistics ...................................................... 31,000,000

ITS standards, research, operational tests, and development ........... 105,000,000

ITS deployment ...................................................................................... 120,000,000

University transportation research ...................................................... 26,500,000

Subtotal ........................................................................................... 447,500,000

Within the funds provided for highway research and development

under the surface transportation research program, the Committee

recommends the following adjustment to the budget request:

Environment, planning, and real estate .............................................. +$1,000,000

Research and technology program support ......................................... ¥1,500,000

International research ........................................................................... ¥700,000

Structures ............................................................................................... +3,200,000

Safety ...................................................................................................... +2,000,000

Operations and asset management ...................................................... ¥4,000,000

Environment, planning, and real estate research.—The environment research and technology program develops improved tools for

65

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 $16,527,000 for environment, planning and

real estate research. Within the funds provided for environmental

research, the Committee directs that no less than $2,000,000 be directed towards environmental streamlining activities.

Research and technology program support.—The Committee has

reduced this program by $1,500,000, to a total of $7,760,000. 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. The Committee reduced funding to

provide amounts to higher priority programs.

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 a total of $12,649,000 for structures research. Funds provided will help FHWA make progress towards its

performance goal to reduce deficiencies on NHS bridges from 21.5%

in 2000 to 21% in 2002, 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

provided, the FHWA is encouraged to provide $1,000,000 to support

research into advanced wood composites as well as research into

the use of lithium technologies to mitigate damage from alkali silica reactions. Within the funds provided, the Committee directs

FHWA to provide $500,000 for the Enser Bridge Project in Florida.

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 $16,619,000 for safety research

programs. Within the funds provided for safety research, the Committee directs FHWA to provide $1,000,000 to the National TransVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.001 pfrm04 PsN: A279
66

portation Research Center in Tennessee to conduct broad-based

laboratory-to-roadside research into heavy vehicle safety issues.

Operations and asset management.—The Committee has pro- vided $10,582,000 for operations research. 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 FHWA to provide $1,000,000 to South Carolina State University for the Southern Rural Transportation Center. 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 $12,753,000 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 FHWA to provide $1,000,000 to

the Center for Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Technology at

Iowa State, and $1,000,000 to support the Institute for Aggregates

Research, Michigan Technical 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, investment analysis, and performance measurement; and enhancing

highway program contributions to economic productivity, efficiency,

and other national goals. The Committee has provided $8,330,000

for policy research. Within the funds provided for policy research,

the Committee directs FHWA to provide the University of Kentucky $2,000,000 for transportation research activities. These funds

can be used for the Academy for Community Transportation Innovation.

In the fiscal year 2003 budget justification, the Committee expects FHWA to delineate the proposed allocation of surface transportation research and development funds using the same categorical basis displayed in the fiscal year 2001 report. The FHWA also

is expected to document how it proposes to allocate the technology

assessment and deployment funds by specific projects or activities

to be conducted by the core business units, state division offices, or

resource centers. The justification should include a separate discussion of how the technology deployment program funds will be integrated with the surface transportation R&D funds.

67

The Committee is interested in ensuring the efficient and effective use of $447,500,000 in Federal Highway Administration transportation research funds provided in fiscal year 2002, and research

funds provided in previous years. The Committee directs the General Accounting Office (GAO) to review the FHWA transportation

research program, by evaluating program benefits and identifying

successful programs and problems. GAO shall provide the study,

including recommendations, to the House and Senate Committees

on Appropriation by June 1, 2002.

Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) distribution.—The

Committee directs that any RABA funds distributed under current

law for surface transportation research and development be allocated only among the core research programs for pavements, structures or safety. None of the distributed RABA funds are to be used

for activities originally requested under agency-wide research initiatives.

ITS standards, research, operational tests and development.—The

Committee recommends the $105,000,000 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

CVO research.—The Committee’s allowance includes $6,800,000

for commercial vehicle research. The additional funds provided

above the request 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.

Rural operations tests.—Within the funds provided for operational tests, the Committee has provided $9,450,000 to assist and

address public safety needs in rural America.

Specified ITS deployment projects.—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 TEA21 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 objecVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.001 pfrm04 PsN: A279
68

tives. Funding for ITS deployment activities to be available are as

follows:

Amount recommended

Alameda-Contra Costa, California ....................................................... $1,000,000

Advanced traffic analysis center, North Dakota ................................. 1,000,000

Alexandria, Virginia .............................................................................. 1,500,000

Army trail road traffic signal coordination project, Illinois ............... 300,000

Atlanta smart corridors, Georgia ......................................................... 1,000,000

Austin, Texas ......................................................................................... 250,000

Bay County area wide traffic signal system, Florida ......................... 1,000,000

Beaver County transit mobility manager, Pennsylvania ................... 800,000

Brownsville, Texas ................................................................................. 500,000

Carbondale technology transfer center, Pennsylvania ....................... 1,000,000

I–90 connector Testbed, New York ....................................................... 1,000,000

Cargo mate logistics and intermodal management, New York .......... 3,674,000

Chattanooga, Tennessee ........................................................................ 1,000,000

Chinatown intermodal transportation center, California ................... 3,500,000

Cicero Avenue/Midway smart corridor, Illinois ................................... 300,000

Commercial vehicle information systems and networks, New York 900,000

Dayton, Ohio .......................................................................................... 2,000,000

Genesee County, Michigan .................................................................... 2,000,000

Great Lakes, Michigan .......................................................................... 3,000,000

Guidestar, Minnesota ............................................................................ 12,000,000

Harris County 911 emergency network, Texas ................................... 1,000,000

Highway rail intersection visual technology, Wisconsin .................... 1,500,000

Hillsborough weigh station, North Carolina ....................................... 500,000

Hoosier SAFE–T, Indiana ..................................................................... 2,000,000

Houma, Louisiana .................................................................................. 1,550,000

Inglewood, California ............................................................................. 1,000,000

Integrated transportation management system, Delaware ................ 2,000,000

Iowa statewide ....................................................................................... 1,000,000

James Madison University, Virginia .................................................... 1,500,000

Kansas City, Kansas ............................................................................. 1,000,000

Kittitas County workzone traffic safety system, Washington ............ 900,000

Lansing, Michigan ................................................................................. 1,500,000

Las Vegas regional transportation commission BRT, Nevada ........... 1,000,000

Libertyville traffic management center, Illinois ................................. 760,000

Long Island rail road grade crossing deployment, New York ............ 2,000,000

Maryland statewide ............................................................................... 1,000,000

Metrolina traffic management center, North Carolina ...................... 2,000,000

Miami-Dade, Florida ............................................................................. 3,500,000

Monterey-Salinas, California ................................................................ 1,500,000

Nebraska statewide ............................................................................... 1,976,000

New York statewide information exchange systems .......................... 1,000,000

Oklahoma statewide .............................................................................. 5,000,000

Oxford, Mississippi ................................................................................ 500,000

Pharr bridge toll connector, Texas ....................................................... 830,000

Philadephia, Pennsylvania .................................................................... 2,000,000

Pioneer Valley, Massachusetts ............................................................. 3,000,000

Port of Long Beach, California ............................................................. 1,000,000

Port of Tacoma trucker congestion notification system, Washington 400,000

Roadside animal detection test-bed, Montana .................................... 500,000

Rochester-Genesse, New York .............................................................. 1,000,000

Rose Bowl access mitigation, California .............................................. 600,000

Sacramento, California .......................................................................... 3,000,000

San Diego joint transportation operations center, California ............ 3,000,000

San Francisco central control communications ................................... 500,000

Seabrook traffic management control, Texas ...................................... 1,200,000

Shreveport, Louisiana ........................................................................... 1,000,000

Silicon Valley transportation management center, California ........... 1,500,000

South Carolina statewide ...................................................................... 1,000,000

South Com regional dispatch trauma center, Illinois ......................... 337,000

Spillway road incident management system, Mississippi .................. 600,000

St. Louis, Missouri ................................................................................. 1,000,000

Statewide transportation operations center, Kentucky ...................... 7,300,000

Superior I–39 corridor, Wisconsin ........................................................ 5,000,000

University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for Injury Sciences,

Alabama .............................................................................................. 2,500,000

University of Arizona, ATLAS Center, Arizona .................................. 1,000,000

69

Amount recommended

Utah statewide ....................................................................................... 1,123,000

Wayne County road information management system, Michigan ..... 3,000,000

Wichita, Kansas ..................................................................................... 1,500,000

Yakima County adverse weather operations, Washington ................ 950,000

University of South Florida, University of Central Florida, I–4 corridor project ........................................................................................ 1,750,000

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 ............................................. $28,000,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ........................................... 30,000,000,000

Recommended in the bill ....................................................... 30,000,000,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 ...................................... +2,000,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 .................................... ........................................

The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of

$30,000,000,000. This is an increase of $2,000,000,000 over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and is needed to pay the outstanding

obligations of the various highway programs at levels provided in

TEA–21.

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

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.

Under TEA–21, Federal-aid highways funds are made available

through the following major programs:

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

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

70

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 2002 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount

I–10 Irvington interchange, Alabama .................................................. $800,000

I–5 HOV/general purpose lanes, California ......................................... 4,000,000

Tippecanoe/I–10 interchange, California ............................................. 2,000,000

I–10 Riverside Ave interchange, California ......................................... 1,000,000

I–5 corridor arteries, California ............................................................ 1,000,000

I–84 flyover access, Connecticut ........................................................... 3,000,000

Port Everglades-Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Airport return loop,

Florida ................................................................................................. 2,500,000

Louisville-Southern Indiana Ohio River bridges project, Indiana ..... 6,000,000

I–75 Exit 11, Kentucky ......................................................................... 375,000

I–12/Northshore Blvd. interchange, Louisiana ................................... 2,000,000

I–12 Interchange at LA 1088, Louisiana ............................................. 1,000,000

US 167/I–20 interchange, Louisiana .................................................... 1,000,000

I–49 Southern extention from I–10, Louisiana ................................... 2,000,000

I–295 connector, Commercial Street, Maine ....................................... 1,000,000

I–96 Latson Road interchange, Michigan ............................................ 3,000,000

I–44 relocation and improvements, Phelps County, Missouri ........... 4,000,000

Montana/Wyoming joint port-of-entry facility ..................................... 1,000,000

I–85 widening completion from Orange County, North Carolina ...... 2,000,000

I–85 in Mecklenburg and Cabarrus Counties, North Carolina .......... 2,000,000

I–25 North of Raton, New Mexico ........................................................ 3,000,000

I–40 Arizona state line east to milepost 30, New Mexico .................. 10,000,000

I–215 Southern beltway to Henderson, Nevada .................................. 1,000,000

I–70/I–75 interchange construction, Ohio ............................................ 2,000,000

Cleveland inner belt, Ohio .................................................................... 1,000,000

I–40 Crosstown expressway realignment, Oklahoma ......................... 5,300,000

I–5 Medford interchange, Oregon ......................................................... 2,000,000

I–80 Exit at Stoney Hollow Road, Pennsylvania ................................ 2,000,000

I–180 Lycoming Mall Road interchange, Pennsylvania ..................... 1,500,000

State Route 0039 & I–81 interchange, Pennsylvania ......................... 750,000

I–79/Warrendale Technology Park interchange, Pennsylvania ......... 2,000,000

I–79/SR 910 interchange, Pennsylvania .............................................. 825,000

I–295 reconstruction, Rhode Island ...................................................... 2,000,000

I–195 Washington Bridge, Rhode Island ............................................. 2,000,000

I–35 West/US 287 interchange, Texas ................................................. 4,000,000

I–10 Katy Freeway, Houston, Texas .................................................... 6,000,000

I–35 East/I–635 interchange, Texas ..................................................... 5,400,000

IH 610 bridge, Texas ............................................................................. 1,500,000

I–15 reconstruction 10800 S. to 600, Utah .......................................... 1,000,000

I–15 Interchange at MP 10, Utah ........................................................ 1,500,000

I–90 two-way transit operations, Washington .................................... 1,000,000

City of Renton/Port Quedall project, Washington ............................... 2,000,000

71

Project Amount

I–79 connector, West Virginia .............................................................. 3,800,000

I–70 improvement project phase II, Frederick, Maryland ................. 1,250,000

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

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 2002 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount

Patton Island Bridge, Alabama ............................................................ $4,000,000

Great River Bridge, Arkansas .............................................................. 3,000,000

Gerald Desmond Bridge replacement, California ............................... 4,000,000

Atlantic Bridge, California .................................................................... 300,000

Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge, Connecticut ....................................... 4,000,000

Cross Road Bridge, Connecticut ........................................................... 3,500,000

A. Max Brewer Causeway Bridge, Florida .......................................... 3,000,000

Iowa/Nebraska Missouri River Bridge, Iowa ....................................... 1,517,000

Rapid River Bridge, Idaho .................................................................... 1,000,000

Topeka Boulevard Bridge, Kansas ....................................................... 2,000,000

Leeville Bridge, Louisiana .................................................................... 3,000,000

Kerner Bridge, Louisiana ...................................................................... 2,000,000

Pennsylvania Avenue Bridge, Michigan .............................................. 3,383,000

72

Project Amount

Ford Bridge, Minnesota ......................................................................... 7,000,000

Route 1 & 9/Production Way to east Lincoln Avenue, New Jersey 3,000,000

145th Street Bridge over Harlem River, New York ............................ 5,800,000

I–84 over Delaware River Twin Bridges, New York ........................... 2,000,000

Route 17 over Wallkill River, New York ............................................. 2,000,000

Martin Luther King Jr. Bridge Rehabilitation, Ohio ......................... 1,500,000

Cooper River bridges replacement, South Carolina ............................ 7,000,000

Leon River Bridge, Texas ...................................................................... 1,500,000

Hood Canal Bridge, Washington .......................................................... 1,500,000

S.R. 240 Yakima Bridge Replacement, Washington ........................... 4,000,000

South Park Bridge, Washington, .......................................................... 2,000,000

Shepherdstown Bridge, West Virginia ................................................. 3,000,000

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 2002

shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding

amounts:

Project Amount

Diamond Bar Road, Arizona ................................................................. $3,000,000

Belardo Bridge, California .................................................................... 2,956,000

Pala Road improvement project, California ......................................... 4,000,000

Death Valley Road reconstruction, California ..................................... 1,712,000

New Access to Bent’s Old Fort National Historic Site, Colorado ...... 500,000

State Highway 149 between South Fork and Creede, Colorado ........ 4,000,000

Timucuan Preserve bike route, Florida ............................................... 1,000,000

Clark Fork River bridge replacement, Idaho ...................................... 3,800,000

Broughton Bridge, Kansas .................................................................... 1,000,000

Daniel Boone Parkway between mileposts 37 and 44, Kentucky ...... 1,500,000

Craigs Creek Road, Kentucky ............................................................... 995,000

Tunnel Ridge Road, Kentucky .............................................................. 1,400,000

SR16 from Loop Road to SR15, Neshoba County, Mississippi ........... 3,500,000

S–323 Alzada-Ekalaka, Montana ......................................................... 2,000,000

Giant Springs Road, Great Falls, Montana ......................................... 1,200,000

Fort Peck Reservation, Montana .......................................................... 1,000,000

Lewis & Clark Trail, Nebraska ............................................................ 325,000

Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, New Jersey ........... 1,000,000

Saratoga Monument Access, New York ............................................... 280,000

Highway 26 between Zigzag and Rhododendron, Oregon .................. 1,000,000

Route 113 Heritage Corridor, Pennsylvania ........................................ 170,000

Marshall County #10 & BIA #15, South Dakota ................................. 500,000

73

Project Amount

Wind Cave National Park Highway #10, South Dakota .................... 1,000,000

Amistad National Recreation Area, Box Canyon Ramp Road, Texas 6,000,000

Herbert H. Bateman Education & Administrative Center, Virginia 1,000,000

USMC Heritage Center access improvements, Virginia ..................... 1,000,000

Hoover Dam Bypass, Arizona ............................................................... 4,000,000

Presidio Trust, California ..................................................................... 1,000,000

Lowell National Historical Park, Riverwalk Design, Massachusetts 563,000

Arcadia National Park Trails & Road Projects, Maine ...................... 1,000,000

Confluence Trail linking Yellowstone, Missouri River to Union

Trading Post, North Dakota .............................................................. 499,000

Reconstruction of NM 537: CN2070, FLH–0537, New Mexico .......... 2,000,000

Complete design for CN3480, TPM–00401, New Mexico ................... 300,000

Preliminary and final design to CN2357, FLH–666–11, New Mexico 2,000,000

SR 146 St. Rose Parkway and I–15 Interchange, Nevada ................. 8,000,000

Blackstone River Bikeway, Rhode Island ............................................ 1,500,000

Woonsocket Depot Rehabilitation, Rhode Island ................................ 1,300,000

Ivy Mountain Road paving, Texas ........................................................ 1,000,000

Arches National Park Main Entrance relocation, Utah ..................... 1,000,000

State Route 153, Beaver to Junction, Utah ......................................... 1,000,000

Route 600 road restructuring, Virginia ............................................... 1,500,000

Trail Extension at Mount Vernon Circle, Fairfax, Virginia ............... 100,000

14th Street Bridge interim capacity and safety improvements, Virginia ..................................................................................................... 11,000,000

The Committee directs that the funds allocated above are to be

derived from the FHWA’s public lands discretionary program, and

not from funds allocated to the National Park Service’s regions.

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

74

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 2002 shall be available for the

following activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount

Memphis-Huntsville-Atlanta Highway preliminary engineering and

construction, Alabama ....................................................................... $1,000,000

Phoenix Ave. improvements and airport access construction, Arkansas ................................................................................................. 1,750,000

I–69 Connector from I–530 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas .......................... 4,000,000

Highway 71 Texarkana South, Arkansas ............................................ 7,000,000

Bristol/First Street intersection Santa Ana, California ...................... 750,000

St. Rt. 905 phase I, California .............................................................. 4,000,000

Arizona 95 to I–40 connector, California ............................................. 1,650,000

Alameda Corridor-East, ACE Project, California ................................ 1,000,000

I–84 Exit 6/Route 37 interchange, Connecticut .................................. 2,300,000

I–4 Crosstown Expressway Connector, Florida ................................... 1,000,000

US 19, Florida ........................................................................................ 20,000,000

New Boston Road (a segment of National Great River Road), Illinois ...................................................................................................... 1,000,000

Outer Belt Connector, Kendall & Kane Counties, Illinois ................. 14,955,000

Hoosier Heartland Industrial Corridor Lafayette to Logansport, Indiana .................................................................................................... 1,000,000

Railroad Avenue Underpass East Chicago, Indiana ........................... 2,500,000

Wichita South Area transportation study, Kansas ............................. 1,000,000

U.S. Highway 54, Kansas ..................................................................... 4,000,000

Heartland Parkway/Highway 55, Kentucky ........................................ 500,000

Highway 61 Green County between Greensburg and Columbia,

Kentucky ............................................................................................. 250,000

Highway 231 Glover Carey bridge and Owensboro intersection,

Kentucky ............................................................................................. 1,000,000

KY 1848 from I–64 to U.S. 60, Kentucky ............................................ 320,000

US 25 North to Renfro Valley, Kentucky ............................................ 2,000,000

I–66, phase II design, Kentucky ........................................................... 2,500,000

US 27 Burnside, Kentucky ................................................................... 800,000

Hwy 92 Whitley County, Kentucky ...................................................... 300,000

I–175 feasibility and planning study, Kentucky ................................. 2,400,000

Clay/Leslie industrial park access, Kentucky ..................................... 4,000,000

Monticello Street underpass, Kentucky ............................................... 1,000,000

US–41A, Kentucky ................................................................................ 100,000

Pennyrile Parkway, Kentucky .............................................................. 1,000,000

Route 116 between Ashfield and Conway, Massachusetts ................. 2,500,000

Route 2 Bypass and safety improvements, Erving, Massachusetts 3,000,000

U.S. Highway 212 Hennepin County, Minnesota ............................... 1,000,000

Falls to the Falls Corridor, Cook, Minnesota ...................................... 3,000,000

I–69 on SIU 11 along U.S. 61, Mississippi .......................................... 1,000,000

MS Highway 44/Pearl River Bridge extension project, Mississippi .. 2,000,000

North/South Corridor protection, North Carolina ............................... 1,000,000

I–87 Corridor study, New York ............................................................ 2,000,000

Stewart Airport connector study, New York ....................................... 350,000

New York Harbor rail freight tunnel, New York ................................ 2,000,000

U.S. 24 Corridor improvement study between Toledo, Ohio and Indiana .................................................................................................... 2,500,000

Cleveland Trans-Erie Ferry service, Ohio ........................................... 300,000

75

Project Amount

US 412 overpass at 1–44, Oklahoma ................................................... 1,500,000

Continental 1, Pennsylvania and New York ....................................... 1,000,000

SC Route 38/I–95 interchange, South Carolina .................................. 1,500,000

Ports-to-Plains corridor development management plan, Texas ....... 2,000,000

I–69 Corridors 18 and 20, Texas .......................................................... 1,250,000

I–35 expansion, Hill County, Texas ..................................................... 2,000,000

Freeport Business Center off ramp, Texas .......................................... 1,000,000

FM 1016 from U.S. 83 to Madero, Texas ............................................. 1,000,000

I–35 replacement bridge, Dallas County, Texas ................................. 1,000,000

Route 340/522 bridge replacement, Virginia ....................................... 100,000

Route 669 bridge widening, Virginia ................................................... 500,000

FAST Corridor project, Washington ..................................................... 1,000,000

41st Street overcrossing, Washington .................................................. 1,425,000

US 395 Spokane Corridor project, Washington ................................... 1,650,000

USH 10 between Stevens Point & Waupaca, Wisconsin .................... 4,000,000

STH 29 between 1–94 and CTH J, Wisconsin ..................................... 10,000,000

Route 10 in Logan County, West Virginia ........................................... 2,000,000

US Route 15 (Future I–99), New York ................................................ 1,000,000

Exit 6 of I–95, Pennsylvania ................................................................. 350,000

Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.—Section 1207 of TEA– 21 reauthorized funding for the construction of ferry boats and

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 2002, TEA–21 provides $38,000,000.

Funds provided for the ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities

program in fiscal year 2002 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount

Treasure Island ferry service, California ............................................. $800,000

Baylink ferry intermodal center, California ........................................ 1,500,000

Fishers Island ferry district, Connecticut ............................................ 2,109,000

City of Palatka, Florida ......................................................................... 300,000

St. Johns River ferry terminal, Florida ............................................... 1,000,000

Key West ferry terminal, Florida ......................................................... 500,000

Savannah water ferry, Georgia ............................................................ 1,000,000

Plaquemines Parish ferry, Louisiana ................................................... 1,200,000

Sandy Hook ferry terminal, New Jersey ............................................. 1,000,000

Battery Maritime Building, New York ................................................ 750,000

Port of Rochester Harbor & ferry terminal improvement, New York 2,000,000

Haverstraw-Ossining-Yonkers Ferry service terminals, New York .. 2,500,000

Cherry Grove ferry dock, New York ..................................................... 91,000

Fire Island terminal infrastructure, New York .................................. 200,000

Jamaica Bay transportation hub, New York ....................................... 300,000

Whitehall Terminal, New York ............................................................ 600,000

Ferry Boat terminal building dock construction, Holland Street

Pier, Pennsylvania ............................................................................. 1,000,000

Sand Point dock, Rhode Island ............................................................. 250,000

Corpus Christi ferry landings, Texas ................................................... 200,000

Oak Harbor Municipal Pier terminal, Washington ............................ 200,000

St. George Ferry terminal, New York .................................................. 500,000

Funds provided for the ferry boat and ferry terminal facilities

designated for Alaska under section 1207(b)(3) of TEA–21 shall be

available for the following activity in the corresponding amount:

Coffman Cove-Wrangell/Mitkof Island ferries, Alaska ....................... $10,000,000

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 2002,

76

TEA–21 provides $25,500,000 for this program. Funds provided for

the national scenic byways program in fiscal year 2002 shall be

available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount

Lewis & Clark Northwest Passage scenic byway passing lanes,

Idaho ................................................................................................... $2,700,000

Route 66 scenic byway livable communities and transportation

plan, New Mexico ............................................................................... 450,000

Warren County scenic byway, New York ............................................ 30,000

Connecticut River scenic farm byway, Massachusetts ....................... 1,200,000

High Street revitalization project, economic development and historic preservation, Lawrenceberg, Indiana ...................................... 750,000

The Cape and Islands rural roads initiative (route 6A), Massachusetts ..................................................................................................... 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 2002 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount

Hanceville downtown revitalization, Alabama .................................... $400,000

U.S. 98 highway lighting, Alabama ..................................................... 900,000

Mobile Greenways, Alabama ................................................................ 600,000

Monroe Park Intermodal Center, Alabama ......................................... 1,000,000

Lewis Avenue Bridge, California .......................................................... 400,000

Ortega Street pedestrian overcrossing gateway, California ............... 245,000

Artesia Boulevard rehabilitation, California ....................................... 400,000

Stamford Waterside, Connecticut ......................................................... 250,000

Route 710 connector improvements and traffic calming, Riviera

Beach, Florida .................................................................................... 300,000

State Route 46 expansion study, Florida ............................................. 749,000

Macon redevelopment, Georgia ............................................................. 200,000

Stearns Road corridor, Multi-use trails, Illinois ................................. 1,000,000

Robbins Commuter Rail Station upgrade, Illinois .............................. 250,000

Central business district trail link Praire Duneland and Iron Horse

Heritage, Indiana ............................................................................... 250,000

Wichita Riverwalk on Arkansas River, Kansas .................................. 500,000

Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for regional trail improvements,

Kentucky ............................................................................................. 2,350,000

Fegenbush Lane bridge at Fern Creek, Kentucky .............................. 400,000

Estill County industrial park access road, Kentucky ......................... 300,000

Estill County bypass lighting around Irvine, Kentucky ..................... 50,000

Park City sidewalks, Kentucky ............................................................ 42,600

Vine Grove sidewalks, Kentucky .......................................................... 125,000

I–79 Relocation and Harbor Enhancement, Massachusetts ............... 350,000

City of Woburn, Massachusetts ............................................................ 200,000

Metrowest Community Project, Massachusetts .................................. 200,000

West Springfield railyard revitalization study, Massachusetts ......... 400,000

South Capitol Gateway & improvement study, Dictrict of Columbia 250,000

Eastern Market pedestrian overpass park, Michigan ........................ 500,000

Phalen Blvd., Minnesota ....................................................................... 600,000

Lake Street access to I–35 West, Minnesota ....................................... 2,000,000

Bicycle/Pedestrian Connections to Charlotte’s trail system, North

Carolina .............................................................................................. 200,000

West Windsor Township bicycle path, New Jersey ............................. 200,000

77

Project Amount

Manalapan Township Woodward Road reconstruction, New Jersey 250,000

Hopewell Borough Street flooding project, New Jersey ...................... 300,000

Oceanport Road flooding improvements, New Jersey ........................ 300,000

Lambertville Street flooding improvements, New Jersey .................. 300,000

NFTA development plan, New York .................................................... 100,000

Shore Road, Lindenhurst, New York ................................................... 500,000

South 7th Street, Lindenhurst, New York .......................................... 250,000

Wyandanch traffic signals, sidewalks and improvements, New York 400,000

Route 22/Mill Road pedestrian street improvements, New York ...... 750,000

Mamaroneck pedestrian improvements, New York ............................ 125,000

New Rochelle NY North Avenue pedestrian street improvements,

New York ............................................................................................ 1,000,000

Bronx River Greenway, New York ....................................................... 750,000

Alliance transportation congestion mitigation, Ohio .......................... 1,500,000

Huffman Prairie Flying Field pedestrian & multimodal Gateway

entrance, Ohio .................................................................................... 300,000

Navajoe Gateway, Oklahoma ................................................................ 200,000

Midwest City downtown revitalization project, Oklahoma ................ 650,000

Great Lake recreation area traffic study, Oklahoma .......................... 250,000

Marysville streetscape improvements, Tennessee .............................. 1,200,000

Pistol Creek pedestrian bridge, Maryville, Tennessee ....................... 900,000

Trinity River visions, Texas .................................................................. 100,000

City of Frisco, Texas .............................................................................. 550,000

Houston Main Street corridor master plan, Texas ............................. 300,000

Waterford National Historic District, Virginia ................................... 900,000

Convening with communities, Washington ......................................... 200,000

Southern Rural Transportation Center, South Carolina .................... 450,000

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, fiscal year 2001 ................................................... ($29,661,806,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 1 ......................................... (31,563,157,000)

Recommended in the bill 2 ..................................................... (31,716,797,000)

Bill compared with:

Limitation, fiscal year 2001 ............................................ (+2,054,991,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 .................................... (+153,640,000) 1The budget request includes new obligation of $4,520,163,000 associated with revenue aligned budget authority. Excludes amounts provided to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, as provided by law; reflects a $46,700,000 transfer to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; and reflects a reduction of

$107,999,000 associated with that transfer. 2The Committee recommendation includes $27,197,693,000 in guaranteed obligations, and $4,519,140 in obligations resulting from revenue aligned budget authority (RABA), consistent with current law.

The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal year

2002 federal-aid highways obligations to $31,716,797,000, an increase of $2,054,991,000 over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and

$153,640,000 over the budget request. The recommended level is

the level assumed in TEA–21. These funds are guaranteed under

the highway category and protected by points of order in the

House.

The obligation limitation for the federal-aid highways program

included in this bill includes $4,519,104,000 in obligations resulting

from revenue aligned budget authority. TEA–21 provides for an

automatic increase 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 exceeds 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 in so-called ‘‘firewall’’ spending levels is made in

the President’s budget submission. TEA–21 calls for any such increases in budget authority to be distributed proportionately among

78

federal-aid highways apportioned and allocated programs, and for

the overall federal-aid obligation limitation to be increased by an

equal amount, and certain amounts to be distributed to the motor

carrier safety grants program of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration. In total, the estimate of increased income, and

therefore budget authority and obligations for fiscal year 2002, is

$4,519,104,000 for the federal-aid highway program.

The budget request proposed to allocate this additional obligation

authority in fiscal year 2002 to the new freedom initiative and the

border infrastructure program. Consistent with the budget request,

the accompanying bill allocates $56,300,000 in RABA for motor carrier inspection facilities at the U.S/Mexico border. These funds are

to construct permanent facilities to house border inspectors and to

construct parking facilities for out-of-service motor carriers. Due to

budget constraints, the accompanying bill does not provide funds

for the new freedom initiative. The Committee notes that up to

$216,550,000 provided within three Federal Transit Administration

programs can be used to support accessibility for the disabled.

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

$31,716,797,000 provided by this Act and additional resources

made available by permanent law:

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS

[In thousands of dollars]

Programs FY 2000 actual FY 2001 estimate FY 2002 estimate

Subject to limitation:

Surface transportation program .............................................................. $6,360,000 $6,721,526 $7,256,517

National highway system ......................................................................... 5,009,000 5,751,509 6,177,138

Interstate maintenance ............................................................................ 3,853,000 4,774,592 5,077,962

Bridge program ........................................................................................ 2,643,000 4,091,650 4,338,843

Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement .............................. 860,000 1,634,860 1,770,363

Minimum guarantee ................................................................................. 1,298,032 1,504,231 2,000,000

Safety incentive grants for use of seat belts ......................................... 85,800 102,461 115,336

ITS standards, research and development .............................................. 75,014 111,707 108,128

ITS deployment ......................................................................................... 143,384 145,494 123,574

Transportation research ........................................................................... 204,264 249,108 197,204

Federal lands highways ........................................................................... 645,662 725,921 716,124

National corridor planning and coordinated border infrastructure ........ 97,693 152,789 144,170

Administration .......................................................................................... 304,355 294,470 325,748

Other programs ........................................................................................ 658,000 522,000 747,690

High priority projects ............................................................................... 968,668 1,311,395 1,831,344

Woodrow Wilson memorial bridge ............................................................ 42,685 194,268 231,702

Transportation infrastructure finance and innovation ............................ 39,000 157,958 123,574

Appalachian development highway system ............................................. 372,769 389,617 398,976

U.S./Mexico border facility construction program ................................... ...................... ...................... 56,300

Total subject to obligation limitation 1 .......................................... 24,794,000 28,835,556 31,740,693

Emergency relief program ................................................................................. 97,945 113,206 100,000

Minimum allocation/guarantee ......................................................................... 710,650 659,373 647,149

Demonstration projects ..................................................................................... 324,373 296,347 207,443

Reestimates of direct loan subsidy/interest on subsidy .................................. 0 19,000 0

Total exempt programs ............................................................................ 1,132,968 1,087,926 954,592

Emergency relief supplemental ........................................................................ 7,847 729,452 ......................

79

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Programs FY 2000 actual FY 2001 estimate

FY 2002 estimate

Grand total, Federal-aid highways (direct) ............................................. 25,934,815 30,652,934 32,695,285

1 Reflects estimated obligations which are less than the obligation limitation adjusted for RABA and enacted reductions.

The following table reflects the estimated distribution of the federal-aid limitation by state:

ESTIMATED FY 2002 OBLIGATIONS

[In thousands of dollars]

State Estimated FY2002 Formula

Limitation

FY 2002 Minimum GuaranteeAppalachian

Development

Highways

Total Change from

FY 2001

Alabama ................................................................ $460,289 $34,368 $43,930 $538,587 $48,583

Alaska .................................................................... 248,919 67,578 .................... 316,497 28,933

Arizona ................................................................... 423,325 48,602 .................... 471,927 38,261

Arkansas ................................................................ 322,361 26,025 .................... 348,385 29,363

California ............................................................... 2,321,476 136,738 .................... 2,458,214 251,501

Colorado ................................................................ 310,882 13,594 .................... 324,477 29,229

Connecticut ........................................................... 353,888 48,225 .................... 402,112 35,356

Delaware ................................................................ 115,768 8,055 .................... 123,823 12,404

Dist. of Col. ........................................................... 107,066 304 .................... 107,370 8,452

Florida ................................................................... 1,123,568 160,665 .................... 1,284,234 100,860

Georgia .................................................................. 838,892 100,834 17,556 957,282 90,224

Hawaii ................................................................... 126,591 10,169 .................... 136,760 10,347

Idaho ..................................................................... 175,194 20,545 .................... 195,739 13,776

Illinois .................................................................... 842,685 46,513 .................... 889,198 73,937

Indiana .................................................................. 588,422 68,278 .................... 656,700 56,211

Iowa ....................................................................... 310,933 10,639 .................... 321,572 24,778

Kansas ................................................................... 303,537 9,199 .................... 312,736 ....................

Kentucky ................................................................ 410,631 31,543 40,299 482,473 37,083

Louisiana ............................................................... 401,800 25,769 .................... 427,569 38,643

Maine ..................................................................... 131,715 10,245 .................... 141,959 11,128

Maryland ................................................................ 402,418 24,522 6,870 433,809 40,324

Massachusetts ...................................................... 455,596 34,604 .................... 490,200 43,716

Michigan ................................................................ 785,366 71,277 .................... 856,643 64,960

Minnesota .............................................................. 371,719 19,911 .................... 391,631 32,849

Mississippi ............................................................ 318,125 21,298 4,927 344,350 52,875

Missouri ................................................................. 605,615 33,864 .................... 639,479 58,807

Montana ................................................................ 241,076 34,014 .................... 275,090 27,461

Nebraska ............................................................... 210,721 5,970 .................... 216,691 21,185

Nevada .................................................................. 177,301 19,422 .................... 196,723 15,605

New Hampshire ..................................................... 124,323 9,743 .................... 134,066 9,837

New Jersey ............................................................. 665,803 38,488 .................... 704,290 52,823

New Mexico ............................................................ 242,549 21,606 .................... 264,155 25,586

New York ............................................................... 1,247,498 91,300 9,468 1,348,266 111,473

North Carolina ....................................................... 662,229 68,260 25,864 756,352 58,353

North Dakota ......................................................... 171,421 10,721 .................... 182,141 16,772

Ohio ....................................................................... 837,326 51,038 19,810 908,174 76,512

Oklahoma .............................................................. 399,751 17,219 .................... 416,970 47,093

Oregon ................................................................... 303,218 15,458 .................... 318,676 26,507

Pennsylvania ......................................................... 1,113,672 62,401 107,414 1,283,487 91,948

Rhode Island ......................................................... 151,664 12,465 .................... 164,130 14,406

South Carolina ...................................................... 409,289 47,488 2,152 458,929 40,534

South Dakota ......................................................... 178,556 12,696 .................... 191,252 16,601

Tennessee .............................................................. 526,731 37,579 49,251 613,560 56,634

Texas ..................................................................... 1,867,887 203,694 .................... 2,071,581 200,008

Utah ....................................................................... 198,699 8,624 .................... 207,323 15,702

Vermont ................................................................. 118,714 7,119 .................... 125,833 12,249

Virginia .................................................................. 633,364 52,774 10,352 696,490 59,966

Washington ............................................................ 450,766 19,641 .................... 470,408 35,257

West Virginia ......................................................... 217,089 9,527 61,083 287,700 23,288

Wisconsin .............................................................. 478,935 51,445 .................... 530,380 45,654

80

ESTIMATED FY 2002 OBLIGATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

State

Estimated FY

2002 Formula

Limitation

FY 2002 Minimum GuaranteeAppalachian

Development

Highways

Total Change from

FY 2001

Wyoming ................................................................ 185,458 7,946 .................... 193,404 19,905

Subtotal ........................................................ 24,670,821 2,000,000 398,976 27,069,797 2,380,863

Special Limitation:

High Priority Projects ................................... .................... .................... .................... 1,831,344 193,942

Woodrow Wilson Bridge ................................ .................... .................... .................... 231,702 37,434

Allocation Reserves ...................................... .................... .................... .................... 2,607,850 ¥468,096

Total Limitation ................................... .................... .................... .................... 31,740,693 2,144,143

Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge.—The Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge Act does not allow bridge construction to begin until an

ownership agreement is executed and finance plan is finalized.

However, construction has begun without execution of an ownership agreement, an agreement on cost overrun responsiblity, and

without a finalized and approved finance plan. The Committee is

concerned about these outstanding requirements.

TEA–21 provided a total of $900 million plus revenue aligned

budget authority amounts, consistent with law, from the highway

trust fund for the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge. Public Law

106–240 allowed $170 million in contracts to go forward without a

bridge financing plan, an ownership agreement, or even a final cost

estimate. In fiscal year 2001, Public Law 106–346 provided the

Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge another $600 million from the

general fund. It also capped the federal commitment at $1.5 billion.

The bridge is estimated to cost $2.1 billion to $2.5 billion.

The Committee directs DOT to ensure all costs and sources of

funds for the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge, including improvements critical to the efficient and safe functioning of the bridge, are

identified in the finance plan. In addition, the Committee expects

these costs and funding sources to be consistent with both Virginia

and Maryland’s state transportation improvement plans. The Committee encourages DOT to implement the direction of the infrastructure task force recommendations including entering into a

written agreement among participants defining federal participation. The Committee directs the Secretary to report to the House

and Senate Committees on Appropriation regarding these requirements by February 1, 2002. The Committee directs the Inspector

General (IG) to review the finance plan, and to provide summary

information to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as expeditiously as possible, but no longer than 60 days after

the finance plan has been submitted to FHWA.

Rural consultation in planning process.—The Committee is very

concerned at the lack of progress the Department has made in

issuing the rural consultation provisions of the statewide planning

regulations. After three years and a clear Congressional mandate

under TEA–21, rural local elected officials continue to be left out

of state-wide planning discussions. This Committee fully expects

this rule to be promulgated by no later than February 1, 2002.

81

Seattle, Washington.—The FHWA shall consider the R–8A proposal for two-way transit operations on Interstate 90 as part of the

environmental study process.

South Capitol Gateway.—The Secretary, in cooperation with the

District of Columbia Department of Planning, the District of Columbia National Capitol Revitalization Commission, and the Department of the Interior and in consultation with other interested

persons, shall conduct a study of methods to make improvements

to promote commercial, recreational and residential activities and

to improve pedestrian and vehicular access on South Capitol Street

and the Frederick Douglass Bridge between Independence Avenue

and the Suitland Parkway, and on New Jersey Avenue between

Independence Avenue and M Street Southeast.

Not later than September 30, 2003, the Secretary shall transmit

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report

containing the results of the study with an assessment of the impacts (including environmental, aesthetic, economic, and historical

impacts) associated with the implementation of each of the methods examined under the study.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana.—The Committee recognizes the impact

of truck traffic to and from the Port of South Louisiana and I–10

through the towns of LaPlace and Reserve, Louisiana and urges

the State of Louisiana to continue efforts initiated in TEA–21 to

provide a north-south roadway from U.S. 61 to I–10 in St. John

Parish. The Committee is also aware of the City of Baton Rouge’s

new comprehensive plan to reduce traffic congestion for safety, economic, energy efficiency, and clean air non-attainment purposes.

The I–12/Essen Lane west ramp project is a critical part of this

plan and the Committee supports the project.

STATE INFRASTRUCTURE BANKS

RESCISSION

Rescission, fiscal year 2001 ............................................................... ............................

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... ............................

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ¥$6,000,000

Bill compared with:

Rescission, fiscal year 2001 ........................................................ ¥6,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ ¥6,000,000

The bill includes a rescission of $6,000,000 of funds provided for

state infrastructure banks that is not allocated to a specific state

in fiscal year 1997 under Public Law 104–205.

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2002 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.

82

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.

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).

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

The office of motor carrier safety provides for most of the salaries, expenses and research 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

administer motor carrier safety programs and motor carrier research. This mechanism is known as a ‘‘takedown.’’ The budget request proposed to amend TEA–21 and increase the takedown to

two thirds of one percent. Although the Committee agrees that the

amount resulting from the current takedown is limiting and has required reductions to important programs, the Committee has rejected the budget proposal. Instead the Committee provides the

level in TEA–21, as ordered by MCSIA.

Limitation on administrative expenses

Limitation, fiscal year 2001 1 ............................................................. ($92,194,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... (139,007,000)

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... (92,307,000)

Bill compared with:

Limitation, fiscal year 2001 ........................................................ (+113,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ (¥46,700,000) 1Does not reflect reduction of $202,827 pursuant to section 1403 of P.L. 106–554 or $375,000 obligation

limitation transfer from FHWA.

The Committee has provided a total of $92,307,000 for the office

of motor carrier safety. This is $46,700,000 below the requested

level and is $113,000, or .1 percent, above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. Of this total, $86,430,000 is for administrative expenses and $5,477,000 is for safety programs. The following adjustments are recommended to the budget request:

83

Provide funding for border inspectors and safety audits in the

Federal Highway Administration budget ..................................... ¥$13,911,000

Deny funding for the motor carrier safety operation program ....... ¥5,000,000

Reduce funding for crash data collection .......................................... ¥2,032,000

Eliminate funding for research and technology ............................... ¥14,128,000

Reduce funding for the commercial drivers license program .......... ¥3,029,000

Delete funding for the bureau of transportation statistics safety

data improvements ......................................................................... ¥9,000,000

Increase funding to reflect a 4.6% pay raise .................................... +400,000

Border inspectors and safety audits.—Due to TEA–21 and MCSIA

restrictions, the Committee was unable to provide funding for border inspectors and safety audits within FMCSA. Instead, the Committee has set aside, from the Federal Highway Administration’s

administrative balances, $13,911,000 for border safety programs.

This will fund 80 new border inspectors, five bilingual lawyers, 23

trailers to house border inspectors, and will provide funds for foreign motor carrier safety audits.

To ensure targeting of scarce resources, the Committee directs

the Secretary to conduct an analysis on the assignment of federal

safety personnel to ensure that resources are being assigned to

areas where known safety needs exists. This analysis should be

based on risk and FMCSA’s ‘‘safe stat’’ data. The analysis shall include an evaluation of assignment of safety enforcement personnel

along the U.S./Mexico border to determine if the resources are

being assigned to the areas of greatest risk, workload needs, and

other safety criteria. The Secretary shall submit the report to the

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by February 1,

2002.

Motor carrier safety operation program.—The Committee has deleted funding for this proposed new program due to budget constraints. The Committee also notes that a domestic new entrant

safety audit notice of proposed rulemaking has not been issued,

which raises questions about the need for funding next year.

Crash data collection.—The Committee has held funding for

crash data collection at the fiscal year 2001 enacted level

($2,986,000) due to budget constraints. This is $2,032,000 below

the budget request.

Motor carrier research.—The Committee has eliminated funding

for motor carrier research in fiscal year 2002, due to budget constraints. The Committee continues to believe research is an important component of the motor carrier safety program. Therefore, the

Committee directs FMCSA to apply any savings in administrative

costs to the research program.

Commercial drivers license program.—The budget request in- cluded $10,000,000 for this program from the office of motor carrier

safety and revenue aligned budget authority. The Committee has

provided a total of $2,134,000 for the commercial drivers license

(CDL) program within the office of motor carrier safety. The Committee also provides $5,000,000 under the ISSSI commercial motor

vehicle driver safety programs. The Committee believes more work

needs to be done to address deficiencies in the CDL program, and

strongly encourages the use of additional 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.

Within the funds provided for the CDL program, FMCSA should

continue working with the American Association of Motor Vehicle

84

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.

Bureau of transportation statistics safety data improvements.— The Committee has deleted funding for the bureau of transportation statistics safety data improvements, due to budget constraints and an absence of justification.

Pay raise.—The Committee has provided funding consistent with

a 4.6 percent pay raise.

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 20011 .................... $177,000,000 ($177,000,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................... 204,837,000 (204,837,000)

Recommended in the bill ................................ 205,896,000 (205,896,000)

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .............. +28,896,000 (+28,896,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ............ +1,059,000 (+1,059,000) 1Does not reflect reduction of $389,400 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

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 $205,896,000 in liquidating cash for this program. This is an increase of $28,896,000 above the level enacted in fiscal year 2001.

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations

$205,896,000 for the national motor carrier safety program. This is

85

the level authorized under the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement

Act of 1999, which amended TEA–21. The limitation includes

$23,896,000 from revenue aligned budget authority, consistent with

law.

The Committee recommends the allocation of funds as follows:

Motor carrier safety assistance program: ......................................... $188,896,000

Basic motor carrier safety grants .............................................. (153,007,000)

Performance-based incentive grant program ............................ (9,000,000)

Border assistance ........................................................................ (10,000,000)

High-priority activities ................................................................ (10,000,000)

State training and administration ............................................. (1,889,000)

Crash causation (sec. 224(f) MCSIA) ......................................... (5,000,000)

Information systems and strategic safety initiatives: ..................... 17,000,000

Information systems .................................................................... (4,000,000)

Motor carrier analysis ................................................................. (3,000,000)

Implementation of PRISM .......................................................... (5,000,000)

Driver programs .......................................................................... (5,000,000)

Border Safety.—The North American Free Trade Agreement

(NAFTA) was signed in 1992 and ratified by Congress in 1993. According to the agreement, Mexican trucks were to be able to drive

in all 50 U.S. states by the end of 2000. Currently, Mexican trucks

are allowed only at the commercial zones within the four states

that border Mexico. On February 7, 2001, an independent dispute

panel ruled that the United States was not in compliance with

NAFTA. The administration has announced that the U.S. will meet

NAFTA requirements and will fully open the U.S./Mexico border in

January 2002.

The Committee provides all necessary funding up to a total of

$120,000,000 to implement the administration’s decision to open

the U.S./Mexico border to commercial motor vehicles in accordance

with the North American Free Trade Agreement. Funding for border safety and enforcement totaled $11,576,000 in fiscal year 2001.

The Committee notes that all foreign and domestic motor carriers

must comply with safety and operating regulations to enter or operate in the United States. Because the Committee agrees that

safety on the U.S./Mexico border is of primary national importance,

the Committee provides a significant increase in resources to ensure safety on the border. The Committee has provided a total of $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2002, which is $4,000,000 over the budget request and $4,000,000

over the fiscal year 2001 level for border and high priority initiatives under the MCSAP. These programs allow border states to

monitor and enforce safety operations of foreign motor carriers in

the U.S. The Committee directs the Secretary to consider border

safety programs when allocating funding for high priority initiatives.

Under Federal Highway Administration, administrative expenses balances, the Committee has provided $13,911,000 to fund an additional 80 federal inspectors for the U.S./Mexico border, five bilingual lawyers, 23 trailers, and safety audits on foreign motor carriers. The increase in inspectors will result in a total of 140 federal

inspectors on the U.S./Mexico border. This level is consistent with

the Inspector General’s recommendation to ensure safety at the

border in reports dated December 1998 and May 2001. In addition,

the Committee also has provided another $56,300,000 under Federal Highway Administration, revenue aligned budget authority,

86

for the construction of border inspection facilities and parking lots

for the vehicles put out-of-service.

The Committee has denied the proposed automatic diversion of

$18,000,000 in revenue aligned budget authority to Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas that would otherwise be distributed

to all states under the MCSAP program. The purpose of this diversion is to encourage the states on the Mexican border to hire state

inspectors for border safety programs. However, significant historical evidence shows states are reluctant to hire inspectors if future

funding is viewed as uncertain. Instead of the proposed automatic

diversion, the Committee has allowed the Secretary to reserve up

to $18,000,000 of FMCSA’s revenue aligned budget authority to reimburse states that choose to hire state safety inspectors for the

border. This funding is available on a first come, first served basis.

If these four states do not chose to use this funding, or do not use

the entire amount reserved by the Secretary, the remaining

amount will be distributed to all states in the regular manner.

Border safety oversight.—The Department of Transportation is

directed to establish and conduct a safety oversight program to assess the operational safety of Mexican-domiciled commercial motor

carriers seeking permanent authority to operate in the U.S. Before

granting conditional U.S. operating authority to any Mexican-domiciled carrier, the Department shall require the carrier to certify its

compliance with U.S. safety laws and regulations and provide a detailed explanation of how critical safety management controls will

be performed. The Department shall carefully examine information

and certifications provided by such carriers for accuracy, including

a review of information in U.S. and Mexican safety databases.

The Department shall place a high priority on conducting inspections of Mexican-domiciled carriers at the roadside to collect data

on new entrant carriers and shall carefully monitor safety databases for evidence of safety performance problems. Further, the Department shall conduct a safety audit of each Mexican-domiciled

carrier within the first eighteen months of conditional operation in

the U.S. to assess the carrier’s compliance with U.S. safety regulations, ensure safety management controls have been established

and maintained, and evaluate the carrier’s safety performance history. Any Mexican-domiciled carrier failing to satisfactorily demonstrate compliance with U.S. safety laws and regulations shall be

denied authority to continue operating in the U.S.

Upon successful completion of the safety audit and lack of evidence of any significant performance issues from roadside inspections at the end of the eighteen month conditional period, the carrier may receive permanent operating authority and will be subject

to the same safety enforcement regime that applies to all current

U.S. carriers.

Border infrastructure funding.—The Committee directs the Secretary to evaluate relevant commercial motor carrier factors including the number of commercial vehicles, delays, traffic patterns, and

safety at each commercial motor carrier crossing at the United

States/Mexico border and submit a report by March 31, 2002, to

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The Committee further directs the Department to consider these factors, including commercial motor vehicle delays, when distributing among

87

the four states on the United States/Mexico border funds for constructing motor carrier safety inspection facilities at the border.

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2002 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 Vehicle Information and

Cost Savings (MVICSA) Act, (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 (MVICS) 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 MVICS 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 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 classVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.001 pfrm04 PsN: A279
88

es 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

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 2000 were 41,800, which is similar

to the 41,611 traffic related deaths in 1999. However, motorcycle

rider deaths continued to increase, with 2,680 riders killed in 2000

compared to 2,472 in 1999. Additionally, passenger car fatalities

were down, 20,455 in 2000 compared to 20,818 in 1999, whereas

fatalities in light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles increased,

11,439 in 2000 compared to 11,243 in 1999. In comparing 1999 to

2000, the number of police-reported crashes and number of injured

persons remained about the same at 6,303,000 and 3,219,000, respectively, for 2000. The fatality rate has increased to 1.6 deaths

per 100,000,000 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) up from 1.5 deaths

in 1999. The following graphs show the safety trends for total fatalities and fatality rate for the past two decades.

89


Insert offset folio 053 here 73279.015
90

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

(INCLUDING HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(General fund) (Highway trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ....................... $116,876,000 $74,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................... 122,000,000 74,000,000

Recommended in the bill .................................... 122,420,000 74,000,000

Bill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................. +5,544,000 ............................

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................ +420,000 ............................ 1Does not reflect reduction of $419,527 pursuant to section 1403 of P.L. 106–554.

For fiscal year 2002, the Administration requested a total of

$196,000,000 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 is requesting $122,000,000 from the general fund

for operations and research activities under sections 30102 and

30104 of title 49 U.S.C. Third, the budget includes an authorization

from the highway trust fund of $2,000,000 for the National Driver

Register. This funding is subject to appropriations.

The Committee recommends new budget authority and obligation

limitations for a total program level of $196,420,000, a 3 percent

increase above fiscal year 2001. Of this total, $122,420,000 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. The funding shall be distributed as follows:

Salaries and benefits ............................................................................. $61,141,000

Travel ...................................................................................................... 1,297,000

Operating expenses ............................................................................... 23,113,000

Contract programs:

Safety performance ......................................................................... 7,341,000

Safety assurance ............................................................................. 15,064,000

Highway safety programs .............................................................. 41,633,000

Research and analysis .................................................................... 57,338,000

General administration .................................................................. 643,000

Grant administration reimbursements ................................................ ¥11,150,000

Total ............................................................................................. 196,420,000

Executive bonuses.—The Committee supports the use of executive

bonuses as a method of rewarding strong achievement and honoring superior performance. However, in NHTSA, it is not clear

whether the agency is linking the award of bonuses to the attainment of performance plans goals. For example, a Presidential initiative to increase national seat belt usage to 85 percent by the end

of 2000 failed. Preliminary data shows that seat belt usage was at

71 in 2000, only a slight increase from the 68 to 70 percent usage

rates since the mid-1990s. Even though the seat belt goal was

missed by 14 percent, NHTSA awarded executive bonuses to officials that were key to reaching this goal. The Committee intends

to hold senior officials accountable in the agency, a result that cannot be achieved if bonuses are handed out indiscriminately. The

Committee recommendation reduces the amount of funding availVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.001 pfrm04 PsN: A279
91

able for bonuses by $20,000, about one-seventh of the budgeted

amount.

Seat belt usage.—Traffic safety experts agree that increasing seat

belt use is the most effective short-term way to significantly reduce

highway deaths and injuries. Achieving a belt use rate of 90 percent would save more than 5,000 lives each year. The task of increasing the national seat belt use rate to 80 percent or higher is

complicated by state secondary enforcement belt use laws. Yet,

eight states and the District of Columbia have usage rates above

80 percent. California is approaching 90 percent usage and Washington exceeds 80 percent even with a secondary enforcement provision in its law.

Sufficient funds are available for NHTSA and the states to do a

better job. These resources must be applied in the most effective

manner. Public education messages alone have not proven to be effective in increasing seat belt use, and should be given a lower priority to new innovative programs. The Committee directs NHTSA

to refocus its programs on those activities that are known to

produce meaningful results and to assure that state grant funds

are also used in the most productive ways. NHTSA is directed to

provide the House and Senate’s Committees on Appropriations

with a report by December 1, 2001 describing its plans to accelerate progress in raising seat belt use.

Highway safety research.—In fiscal year 2002, NHTSA proposes

to use highway safety research funds to test and evaluate promising technologies to increase seat belt use. Newly developed vehicle technologies may present opportunities for increasing seat belt

use, without being overly intrusive. The Committee directs NHTSA

to contract with the Transportation Research Board of the National

Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on the benefits and acceptability of these technologies, as well as any legislative or regulatory

actions that may be necessary to enable installation of devices to

encourage seat belt use in passenger vehicles. The results of this

study shall be reported to the House and Senate Committees on

Appropriations by January 15, 2003.

Pay raise.—The Committee has included $440,000 to fund a 4.6

percent pay raise instead of the 3.6 percent contained in the budget

request.

Computer support.—For the past two years, the Committee has

been urging NHTSA to adopt a more cost effective approach to handling computer support expenses; however the Administration appears unable to do so. In a flat budget environment, coupled with

extremely tight Congressional deadlines on tire, rollover, and child

safety issues, it is imperative that NHTSA’s computer office fully

support the agency’s needs, yet use restraint in its own expenditures. Because the office has been unable to do so for the past few

years, funding for this office shall be held at last year’s level.

Bill language.—The Committee continues to carry a provision

prohibiting any agency funded in this Act from planning, finalizing

or implementing any rulemaking which would require passenger

car tires be labeled to indicate their low rolling resistance.

92

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(Liquidation of contract authorization)(Limitation on obligations)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ....................... $213,000,000 ($213,000,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................... 223,000,000 (223,000,000)

Recommended in the bill .................................... 223,000,000 (223,000,000)

Bill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................. +10,000,000 (+10,000,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................ ............................ ............................ 1Does not reflect reduction of $468,600 pursuant to section 1403 of P.L. 106–554.

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. The Committee recommends $223,000,000 for liquidation of contract authorization, which is a 5 percent increase above the 2001 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. These obligations

are included within the highway guarantee. The bill includes separate obligation limitations with the following funding allocations:

Highway safety programs .................................................................. $160,000,000

Occupant protection incentive grants ............................................... 15,000,000

Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures ...................................... 38,000,000

State highway safety data grants ..................................................... 10,000,000

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 $160,000,000 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 $8,000,000.

Occupant protection incentive grants.—The Committee has fully

funded the occupant protection incentive grant program at

$15,000,000. States may qualify for this new grant program by implementing 4 of the following 6 laws and programs: (1) a law requiring safety belt use by all front seat passengers, and beginning

in fiscal year 2001, 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) speVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.001 pfrm04 PsN: A279
93

cial 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 $750,000.

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)

an effective system for increasing the rate of testing for BAC of

drivers in fatal crashes. Second, they can demonstrate a reduction

in alcohol involved fatality rates in each of the last three years for

which 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 $38,000,000 for these grants in fiscal

year 2002. Language is included in the bill that limits funding

available for federal grants administration from this program to

$1,900,000.

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 significant anti-drunk driving legislation.

State highway safety data improvements.—The Committee has

provided $10,000,000 for the state highway safety data improvement grants program. To receive first year grants, a state has

three options: (1) establish a multi-disciplinary highway safety data

94

and traffic records coordinating committee; complete a highway

safety data and traffic records assessment or audit within the last

five years; and initiate development of a multi-year highway safety

data and traffic records strategic plan. (2) a state must certify that

it has met the first two criteria in Option 1; submit a data and

traffic records multi-year plan; and certify that the coordinating

committee continues to operate and support the plan. (3) the Secretary may award grants of up to $25,000 for one year to any state

that does not meet the criteria for option 1. States that receive first

year grants would be eligible for subsequent grants by: submitting

or updating a data and traffic multi-year plan; certifying that the

coordinating committee continues to support the multi-year plan;

and reporting annually on the progress made to implement the

plan. Language is included in the bill that limits funding available

for federal grants administration from this program to $500,000.

Bill language.—The bill contains three pieces of bill language

that pertain to NHTSA. 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 under

section 410. Third, a general provision (sec. 333), that was included

for the first time in fiscal year 2001, is continued in fiscal year

2002. This provision 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.

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2002 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

2002 is $684,412,000, which is $33,154,000 more than requested.

The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2001 program levels, the fiscal year 2002 program requests and the Committee’s recommendations:

Program Fiscal year 2001

enacted level2

Fiscal year 2002

request

Recommended

in the bill

Safety and operations ............................................................... 3 $101,717,000 $111,357,000 $110,461,000

Safety and operations user fees .............................................. .............................. ¥41,000,000 ..............................

Railroad research and development ......................................... 25,325,000 28,325,000 27,375,000

Railroad research and development user fees ........................ .............................. ¥14,000,000 ..............................

Rhode Island rail development ................................................. 17,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Pennsylvania station redevelopment1 ...................................... 20,000,000 20,000,000 0

Next generation high-speed rail ............................................... 25,100,000 25,100,000 25,100,000

Alaska Railroad ......................................................................... 20,000,000 .............................. ..............................

West Virginia rail ...................................................................... 15,000,000 .............................. ..............................

Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation ................ 521,476,000 521,476,000 521,476,000

95

Program Fiscal year 2001

enacted level2

Fiscal year 2002

request

Recommended

in the bill

Total .......................................................................................... $745,618,000 $651,258,000 $684,412,000

1 This is an advance appropriation provided in P.L. 106–113. 2 Excludes $1,640,000 in across-the-board reductions pursuant to P.L. 106–554. 3 Excludes $1,500,000 in maglev funds transferred from other accounts.

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ....................................................... $101,717,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 2 ..................................................... 111,357,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 110,461,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. +8,744,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ ¥896,000 1 Excludes $223,777 in across-the-board reductions and $1,500,000 in maglev funds transferred for other accounts. 2Of this total, $41,000,000 was to be offset from new railroad safety user fees.

The safety and operations account provides support for FRA’s

rail safety and passenger and freight program activities. Funding

also supports all salaries and expenses and other operating costs

related to FRA staff and programs.

A total of $110,461,000 has been allocated to safety and operations, which is 8.5 percent above the 2001 enacted level. Of this

total, $6,159,000 is available until expended. The following adjustments have been made to the budget request:

Decrease new funding for technical studies and assessments ........ ¥$500,000

Fund portion of Operation Lifesaver in FTA ................................... ¥225,000

Deny 7 new positions ......................................................................... ¥291,000

Deny continued funding for Operation Respond center .................. ¥349,000

Provide for 4.6 percent pay raise ...................................................... +469,000

Technical studies and assessments.—FRA requested $945,000 in

new funding for technical studies, assessments, and environmental

impact statement support. Currently, the administration has approximately $500,000 in its base for these types of activities. Even

with the reduction from the budget request (¥$500,000), the Committee has doubled the amount of funding available for this work.

This should be sufficient as the administration’s most pressing environmental issue, the train horn rule, should be finalized this

summer and enacted before the beginning of fiscal year 2002.

Operation Lifesaver.—The Committee recommends a slight reduction in FRA funding for Operation Lifesaver (¥$225,000). This

reduction should not be interpreted as a decrease in support for

this worthy organization but instead is a reallocation of support

from FRA to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). A comparable amount of funding for Operation Lifesaver is contained in

FTA’s administrative expenses account. As more and more cities

begin analyzing and building commuter and light rail projects, the

Committee believes that transit should begin to play a larger role

in supporting Operation Lifesaver’s activities, because transit properties are also vulnerable to trespassers and grade crossing fatalities. Support across all rail system users would have the highest

impact in reducing these types of accidents and fatalities.

New positions.—The Committee has denied seven new positions

requested by FRA because of a government-wide hiring freeze

placed on GS–14s and above (¥$291,000). The specific positions denied are an operating practices specialist, a motive power and

96

equipment specialist, two operations research analysts, one economist, one industrial hygienist, and one train control specialist.

Operation Respond.—Last year, the Committee provided $350,000 to establish an Operation Respond center. This was a

one-time appropriation for equipment, vehicles, containers, and a

hazardous materials training facility. However, FRA has not removed this one-time funding from its fiscal year 2002 budget. The

Committee believes that contributions should now be derived from

industry and other sources, as outlined in last year’s Senate report,

S. Rpt. 106–309 (¥$349,000).

Education and enforcement at grade crossings.—FRA should continue to work with affected communities, including those in the

states of Illinois and Ohio, to promote highway-rail grade crossing

safety through enhanced education and increased enforcements activities. This program should include public and media information

campaigns, meetings with communities on specific crossings and

the unique safety problems associated with these crossings, as well

as support for increased enforcement at crossings. In addition, if

states want to consider expanding photo enforcement pilot programs to high-risk crossings, FRA should participate in this endeavor.

Pay raise.—The Committee has included $469,000 to fund a 4.6

percent pay raise instead of the 3.6 percent requested in the budget.

User fees.—The Committee has denied the administration’s request to collect $41,000,000 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.

Bill language.—The Committee has deleted bill language, carried

for many years, relating to the payment of the first deed of trust

for Union Station. This language is no longer necessary, as this

deed will be paid in full in 2001.

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ....................................................... $25,325,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 2 ..................................................... 28,325,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 27,375,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. +2,050,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ ¥950,000 1 Excludes $55,715 in across-the-board reductions.

2Of this total, $14,000,000 was to be offset from new railroad research and development user fees.

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 $950,000 less than requested. The following adjustments

have been made to the budget request:

Hold Transportation Test Center to 2001 level ............................... ¥$400,000

Reduce requested increase for security technology ......................... ¥250,000

Provide half of new request for ride safely ...................................... ¥300,000

97

Transportation Test Center.—Similar to last year, the Committee

has held funding for the Transportation Test Center (TTC) to last

year’s level (¥$400,000). This funding provides ample resources for

refurbishment and replacement of facilities and equipment at the

Transportation Test Center in Pueblo, Colorado.

Security technology.—FRA is requesting $500,000 for security

technology and has justified this new program based on incidents

that happened in the mid 1990s. Few, if any, recent acts of cyber

threats, biological or chemical threats have occurred in the railroad

industry. Most security violations are acts of vandalism, which is

difficult to control. As a result, the Committee is only providing

half of the requested increase for security technology research and

development activities (¥$250,000).

Ride safely.—FRA requested $600,000 for a new ride safely initiative. The justification states that this new research program

analyzes high-speed train operations, including the impact of vibrations on the traveling public. An extensive body of research already

exists on high-speed train ride quality, particularly in the international arena where high-speed train travel has been commonplace for a number of years. FRA should make use of this research

more fully and integrate it with limited testing on the high-speed

trains operating along the Northeast Corridor. Most of the funding

should focus on ride quality outside of the Northeast Corridor

(¥$300,000).

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

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 2002, as requested.

98

PENNSYLVANIA STATION REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ....................................................... $20,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... 20,000,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... ............................

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. ¥20,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ ¥20,000,000 1 Excludes $44,000 in across-the-board reductions.

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, an advance

appropriation totaling $60,000,000 was provided, of which

$20,000,000 was allocated to fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003. In

fiscal year 2001, the $20,000,000 was made available specifically

for fire and life safety initiatives. The Administration is requesting $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2002

to continue the redevelopment activities. The Committee has denied this request for a variety of reasons.

First, the project may not be able to meet all the requirements

for its Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act

(TIFIA) loan before the loan expires in September 2001. In September 1999, the Department of Transportation executed a TIFIA

loan agreement for $140,000,000 with the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corporation (PSRC). The TIFIA loan agreement contains a number of funding requirements including: (1) the submission to the Department of a credit rating agency letter identifying

the senior debt of the project as investment grade; (2) evidence that

the senior debt has been issued; (3) a detailed plan of finance; (4)

executed leases with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Amtrak, and the U.S. Postal Service; (5) and executed developer and operating agreements and grant agreements, all in a form

satisfactory to DOT. Until these agreements and funding requirements are met, there will be no TIFIA loan disbursements.

As of May 2001, a number of significant actions are still required

by PSRC. Not all of the project funding has been secured. Specifically, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority grant agreement

for $35,000,000 has yet to be executed and the Urban Development

Corporation senior bond funding for up to $155,000,000 still must

be issued. PSRC has not completed negotiations of leases with the

Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Amtrak, or the U.S.

Postal Service. Finally, the bond rating, plan of finance, and preconstruction work have not yet been completed. PSRC does not anticipate this work being completed until, at least, the fall of 2001,

after the TIFIA loan expires.

Second, PSRC has had a very ambitious development and construction schedule, which the corporation has been unable to meet.

For example, PSRC anticipated early award of contracts to develop,

build, operate, and maintain the facility. This approach did not

generate sufficient interest from the construction community. As a

result, PSRC had to pursue an alternative strategy of using a single developer, which has further delayed the project by at least one

year. Opening is not scheduled until 2006.

Lastly, costs for the Pennsylvania station redevelopment project

continue to grow. At this time last year, the project was estimated

99

to cost $788,000,000 to complete. Now the project is estimated to

cost $815,000,000. When the Committee first began investing in

this project, the total project was estimated to cost $315,000,000.

Significant scope changes have led to a $500,000,000 cost increase

over the past six years.

Until PSRC is able to meet the criteria required by the TIFIA

loan, gets firm control over the schedule slippage and cost growth,

the Committee cannot continue supporting this project with additional appropriations.

NEXT GENERATION HIGH-SPEED RAIL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ....................................................... $25,100,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... 25,100,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 25,100,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. ............................

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ ............................ 1 Excludes $55,220 in across-the-board reductions.

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 $25,100,000 for the next generation

high-speed rail program, which is the amount requested. Total program funding is allocated as follows:

2001 enacted 2002 request Committee

recommendation

Train control systems ............................................................... $11,000,000 $11,000,000 $11,000,000

Illinois project .................................................................. (7,000,000) (7,000,000) (7,000,000)

Michigan project .............................................................. (3,000,000) (3,000,000) (3,000,000)

Digital radio network vehicle tracking system ................ (500,000) .............................. ..............................

Transportation safety research alliance .......................... (500,000) .............................. ..............................

Train control—TTC .......................................................... .............................. (1,000,000) (1,000,000)

Non-electric locomotives ........................................................... 6,800,000 6,800,000 6,800,000

ALPS ................................................................................. (3,800,000) (3,800,000) (3,800,000)

Prototype locomotive ........................................................ (3,000,000) (3,000,000) (3,000,000)

Grade crossings & Innovative technologies ............................. 4,300,000 4,300,000 4,300,000

N.C. sealed corridor ......................................................... (700,000) (700,000) (700,000)

Mitigating hazards ........................................................... (2,500,000) (2,500,000) (2,500,000)

Low-cost technologies ...................................................... (1,100,000) (1,100,000) (1,100,000)

Track and structures ................................................................ 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000

Corridor planning ...................................................................... 1,700,000 1,700,000 1,700,000

Total ............................................................................. 25,100,000 25,100,000 25,100,000

Rail-highway crossings hazard eliminations.—Under section

1103 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 rail corridors are eligible for these funds.

Of these set-aside funds, $1,800,000 shall be used to mitigate grade

crossings hazards between Mobile, Alabama and New Orleans,

Louisiana; $1,750,000 shall be used to mitigate grade crossing hazards between Stuyvesant and Rennselaer, New York; $1,000,000

shall be used to mitigate grade crossing hazards along the highspeed rail corridor in Richland County, South Carolina; $250,000

shall be used to mitigate grade crossing hazards between Richmond

and Centralia, Virginia; $200,000 shall be used to mitigate grade

crossing hazards in Van Nuys, California; and $250,000 shall be

100

used on the high-speed rail corridor between Minneapolis/St. Paul,

Minnesota and Chicago, Illinois.

Corridor planning.—Of the $1,700,000 provided for corridor plan- ning activities, FRA shall provide $600,000 for corridor planning

activities along the Gulf Coast corridor between Mobile, Alabama

and New Orleans, Louisiana and $50,000 for corridor planning activities along the Southeast corridor between Richmond, Virginia

and the North Carolina border.

CAPITAL GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER

CORPORATION

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ....................................................... $521,476,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... 521,476,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 521,476,000

Bill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. ............................

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ ............................ 1 Excludes $1,147,247 in across-the-board reductions.

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

In 1997, Congress passed the Amtrak Reform and Accountability

Act, which among other things, sought to improve Amtrak’s financial performance by setting a specific time frame for Amtrak to become operationally self-sufficient. The deadline of December 2,

2002, gives Amtrak about one and a half years to eliminate its operating budget shortfall and become self-sufficient. It is a daunting

challenge, but one that the Committee expects Amtrak to meet.

Four years into this mandate, Amtrak has achieved some savings, but it still has a long way to go. Amtrak has developed and

modified a business plan that gradually reduces the railroad’s need

for federal operating assistance; however, this plan isn’t coming

close to meeting its goals. For example, in 2000, Amtrak planned

to reduce the ‘‘budget gap’’ (the gap between revenues and expenses

that Amtrak must close to obtain operational self-sufficiency) by

$114,000,000, yet the corporation only closed the gap by

$5,000,000. Similarly, Amtrak estimated that it would earn

$260,000,000 from its mail and express services; however, actual

revenues were less than half that contained in the plan

($122,000,000). Also, the plan anticipated $180,000,000 in revenues

from new high-speed rail service, but the onset of this service was

delayed by over one year, resulting in an $83,000,000 loss in ticket

revenues. Finally, in one year alone (1999 to 2000), Amtrak’s longterm debt and lease obligations grew by $1 billion. Amtrak stayed

on its business plan (‘‘glidepath’’) by drawing down on cash, selling

assets, and by increasing its borrowings. It appears that Amtrak is

furiously treading water, instead of learning how to swim on its

own.

For the past few years, Amtrak has been overly optimistic about

its ability to meet the self-sufficiency deadline. The railroad has repeatedly testified that it will be able to meet the self-sufficiency

101

goal mandated by the Amtrak Reform Act, and has stated that it

can do so one year ahead of schedule. However, at this year’s hearing, Amtrak testified that meeting the operational self-sufficiency

deadline would be a difficult task, but one that the railroad was

still planning to meet. In comparison, the General Accounting Office and the Inspector General have been increasingly pessimistic

about Amtrak’s ability to reach operational self-sufficiency. Earlier

this year, the Inspector General testified that Amtrak’s ability to

reach operational self-sufficiency was in jeopardy because increased

revenues have not kept ahead of growing expenses.

While it is still too early to say definitively whether or not Amtrak will achieve operating self-sufficiency by December 2, 2002,

the railroad’s ability to meet this mandate depends heavily on success in three areas: the implementation of high-speed rail along the

Northeast Corridor; higher mail and express revenues; and significantly reducing the corporations recurring expenses.

First, Amtrak must fully implement high-speed rail in the Northeast Corridor. This remains an elusive challenge, as the program

has been repeatedly delayed. Currently only 3 of the 20 Acela Express trainsets have been put into revenue service, and Amtrak has

only accepted 8 of the 15 high-speed locomotives for its Acela regional service. In February, Amtrak was informed that it would not

receive delivery of all the trainsets until the end of 2001, instead

of September 2001 as predicted. This additional three-month delay

will cost Amtrak about $40,000,000 in revenue that it was planning

to use to help reach operational self-sufficiency.

Second, Amtrak must fully ramp up its mail and express business. In its 2001 business plan, Amtrak projected total revenues

from mail and express to exceed $400,000,000 in 2003. To accomplish this, Amtrak will have to more than triple the business volume it achieved in 2000. Amtrak currently does not have the

equipment or shipping contracts in place to generate that level of

business. Another major obstacle is getting approval from the

freight railroads for the level of services Amtrak proposes. Amtrak

has been in negotiations for years with the freight railroads to

move more mail and express cars over freight-owned lines. So far,

Amtrak has not had much success in obtaining the necessary

agreements. These agreements are essential for Amtrak to grow its

mail and express business to the levels projected in its business

plan.

Third, Amtrak must reduce its business expenses substantially.

Amtrak’s cash operating expenses grew by 8.6 percent in 2000 and

by 11.7 percent for the first four months of 2001. Yet Amtrak’s

business plan projects annual growth in cash operating expenses

between 2000 and 2003 of only about 6 percent. Funds for needed

capital are being increasingly diverted to pay long-term debts, not

improving the long-term health of the Corporation, and are adding

to the recurring lose base. For example, in 1996, Amtrak’s total

debt service payment was approximately $60,000,000. For 2001,

Amtrak anticipates a debt service payment (principal and interest)

of $186,000,000. By 2005, Amtrak is projecting a total debt service

payment of $277,000,000. This payment may be underestimated, as

Amtrak is in the process of refinancing Pennsylvania Station in

New York City, so that the Corporation has sufficient revenue

(about $300,000,000) to operate for the remainder of 2001. RestrictVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.001 pfrm04 PsN: A279
102

ing expense growth will be exceedingly difficult to do in view of

Amtrak’s plans to expand passenger services and its mail and express business as well as to refinance key assets.

Even if Amtrak meets the self-sufficiency mandate, it will have

difficulty maintaining this status without a significant infusion of

federal funding each year, for Amtrak has substantial capital

needs. For example, Amtrak estimated that approximately $12.5

billion will be needed over the next 25 years to modernize the infrastructure on the northeast corridor between Washington, D.C.

and New York City. In addition, Amtrak requires about

$300,000,000 per year to replace its capital assets, such as its facilities and equipment. Further, Amtrak will need to undertake significant fire and life safety repairs to the six river tunnels leading

into Pennsylvania Station. The cost of this work, to be shared

among Amtrak, Long Island Rail Road, and New Jersey Transit, is

estimated at $655,000,000 if the work is done over a 15-year period, or $898,000,000 if the work is to be completed by 2008. Finally, Amtrak may incur sizable capital expenses if it expands

high-speed rail operations to other locations throughout the United

States.

Amtrak’s current business plan states that the railroad will need

about $1.5 billion per year to ensure the current level of service on

the national network and to expand the U.S. passenger rail system.

At the moment, Amtrak is hoping that the majority of this funding

will be provided through new bonding authority. Under a bill currently introduced in the Senate, Amtrak would be able to sell $12

billion in high-speed rail bonds over the next 10 years. The funds

would be invested in designated corridors: (1) to upgrade routes to

high-speed rail; (2) to construct dedicated high-speed rail tracks;

and (3) to purchase high-speed rail equipment. States must match

20 percent of the funds. The matching requirement is designed to

ensure that Amtrak works in partnership with the states and invests these funds in only the most economically viable projects. If

this bill is not enacted into law, Amtrak may seek up to $1.5 billion

in annual appropriations. Based upon history, this is well above

any realistic funding level for the appropriations process to sustain.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The budget request sought $521,476,000 in capital funds and

continued authority to use the capital appropriations for preventive

maintenance. This is the fifth, and final, installment of a five-year,

$5 billion plan to re-energize and recapitalize Amtrak. In addition,

the budget requests that Amtrak be able to use all of the federal

funding immediately rather than being held to a 40 percent spend

out rate in the first year. The Committee is fully funding this request, without a limitation on obligations.

Maintenance activities.—The Committee expects that Amtrak

shall not use its capital grants after 2002 for maintenance of way,

facilities, and equipment. Beginning in 2003, the Amtrak Reform

and Accountability Act required the railroad to be operationally

self-sufficient. At that point, Amtrak must cover all of its operating

expenses, except for excess railroad retirement payments, from

non-federal sources, and federal capital grants must no longer be

used for operating purposes, according to current law. While the

Committee has to this point, given Amtrak maximum flexibility in

103

defining a ‘‘capital’’ expense, after fiscal year 2002 the Committee

will insist that any capital appropriation be reserved for more traditional and narrowly defined capital needs.

Alliance, OH Station relocation/construction.—Amtrak currently

utilizes a rail platform in Alliance, Ohio to provide service for the

Pennsylvania and Capitol Limited trains with additional service

planned for the future. The current platform does not adequately

meet the needs of the community and its location adversely impacts freight operations. In conjunction with the city of Alliance,

Amtrak has developed a plan to improve accessibility, visibility,

safety and information. This work is not currently included within

Amtrak’s capital plan; however, Amtrak has funding set-aside for

leveraging state and local partnerships. Amtrak is strongly encouraged to consider funding relocation and construction for the Alliance, Ohio station when selecting projects for state and local partnerships in fiscal year 2002.

General provision.—The Committee has continued language (sec.

336) that authorizes Amtrak to obtain motor pool services from the

General Services Administration until Amtrak operates without a

federal operating grant. The Committee anticipates that this will

be the last year that this language is necessary as Amtrak is required to be operationally self-sufficient by December 2, 2002.

AMTRAK REFORM COUNCIL

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ....................................................... $750,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 2 ..................................................... 785,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 785,000

Bill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. +35,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ ............................ 1 Excludes $2,000 in across-the-board reductions.

2The Amtrak Reform Council is an independent entity. Funding for the Council is provided through a general provision (Sec. 326), and is not part of FRA’s budget. Funding is presented here only for display pur- poses.

The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 established

the Amtrak Reform Council (ARC). The Council consists of 11

members who are tasked with evaluating Amtrak’s performance

annually and reporting their recommendations to Congress and

Amtrak on ways the railroad can contain costs, improve productivity, and implement financial reforms. In addition, the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,

1999 expanded the Council’s statutory responsibilities to include

recommendations on any routes or services that Amtrak’s data indicate should be closed or realigned.

As a practical matter, the ARC is a temporary council. By the

end of fiscal year 2002, the Council must make a determination on

whether or not Amtrak can meet the financial goals outlined in the

Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act. If the ARC determines

these goals cannot be met, they must submit a restructuring plan

to Congress, and Amtrak must submit a liquidation plan.

For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $785,000 for

the Amtrak Reform Council, which is the same level as requested.

This funding is provided through a general provision (sec. 326) and

is only shown here for display purposes.

104

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2002 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 other 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

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 $6,747,000,000 and outlays are capped at

$5,664,000,000 in fiscal year 2002. 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 2002 is

$6,747,000,000, including $1,349,300,000 in direct appropriations

and $5,397,800,000 in limitations on contract authority. The total

recommended is $476,000,000 over the fiscal year 2001 enacted

level, and the same level as guaranteed in TEA–21. The following

table summarizes the fiscal year 2001 program levels, the fiscal

year 2002 budget request, and the fiscal year 2002 program levels:

Program 2001 enacted 2002 request Recommended

in the bill

Administrative expenses 1 ......................................................... $64,000,000 $67,000,000 $67,000,000

Formula grants 2 ....................................................................... 3,345,000,000 3,592,000,000 3,592,000,000

University transportation research ........................................... 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000

Transit planning and research ................................................. 110,000,000 116,000,000 116,000,000

Capital investment grants 3 ..................................................... 2,646,000,000 2,841,000,000 2,841,000,000

Job access and reverse commute grants ................................. 100,000,000 125,000,000 125,000,000

Total ............................................................................. 6,271,000,000 6,747,000,000 6,747,000,000

1 Does not reflect rescission totaling $13,803,900 from section 1403 of P.L. 106–554 and $1,646,816,709 in potential FHWA flex funding. 2 Fiscal year 2001 does not reflect transfer of $50,000,000 from formula grants to capital investment grants and $1,000,000 from formula

grants transferred to the Office of the Inspector General. 3 Excludes $4,500,000 in direct appropriations pursuant to sections 1005, 1007, and 1123 of P.L. 106–554.

105

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriation (General fund)Limitation on obligations (Trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ....................... $12,800,000 ($51,200,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................... 13,400,000 (53,600,000)

Recommended in the bill .................................... 13,400,000 (53,600,000)

Bill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................. +600,000 (+2,400,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................ ............................ ............................ 1Does not reflect reduction of $140,800 pursuant to section 1403 of P.L. 106–554.

The bill provides a total appropriation of $67,000,000 for FTA’s

salaries and expenses. The recommendation is $3,000,000 above

the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and the same level as the budget

request. This appropriation is guaranteed under the transit funding category. The recommendation of $67,000,000 is comprised of

an appropriation of $13,400,000 from the general fund and

$53,600,000 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 10 new positions requested; however, funding has been

reduced for these positions by $431,000. This reduction reflects

half-year funding for these new positions, which is consistent with

staffing requests in other modal administrations. Also, the Committee is aware of FTA’s high attrition rate (7.6 percent) and 32

vacancies currently within the administration. It is likely to take

a substantial amount of time to fill these vacancies, which may

delay filling the ten new positions until well into fiscal year 2002.

Pay raise.—The Committee has provided $344,000 for a 4.6 percent pay raise instead of the 3.6 percent raise reflected in the budget.

Operation Lifesaver.—Within the amounts provided to FTA, $225,000 shall be provided to Operation Lifesaver for grade crossing safety and trespasser prevention activities. With the growth in

commuter rail and light rail activities across the United States and

the increase in deaths attributable to these types of operations, the

Committee believes that Operation Lifesaver should no longer be

funded exclusively by the Federal Railroad Administration and the

Federal Highway Administration. All modal administrations within

DOT that have a stake in preventing grade crossing accidents and

fatalities should contribute to this worthy organization.

Project management oversight activities.—The Committee directs

that funding made available for the project management oversight

function, section 23, shall include at least $28,564,000 for project

management oversight reviews and $4,600,000 for financial management oversight reviews. The Committee believes it is imperative

that the FTA understand more fully the financing proposals of

major transit projects authorized in TEA–21 before entering into

full funding grant agreements and to identify critical engineering

risks, funding deficiencies or inadequate financing plans before

funding shortfalls materialize. The experience to date with several

projects in FTA’s current portfolio suggests that a more aggressive

approach is warranted by the FTA. A recent example is Seattle’s

light rail project, where an FFGA was approved in January 2001,

yet funding for this project was denied in this year’s budget request

(FY 2002) because of serious cost overruns, schedule delays, and

106

community dissatisfaction. The Committee expects the FTA to continue to submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Inspector General and the General Accounting Office the

quarterly FMO and PMO reports for each project with a full funding grant agreement.

The Committee has included 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 2002.

Full funding grant agreements (FFGAs).—TEA–21, as amended,

requires that the 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, the conferees direct the FTA 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.

The conferees also direct the FTA 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.

FORMULA GRANTS

Appropriation (General fund)Limitation on obligations (Trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ....................... $669,000,000 ($2,676,000,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................... 718,400,000 (2,873,600,000)

Recommended in the bill .................................... 718,400,000 (2,873,600,000)

Bill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................. +49,400,000 (+197,600,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................ ............................ ............................ 1Does not reflect reduction of $7,246,800 pursuant to section 1403 of P.L. 106–554 and a transfer of

$1,000,000 to the Office of Inspector General.

The accompanying bill provides a total of $3,592,000,000 for

transit formula grants. This level is $247,000,000 above the 2001

107

enacted level of $3,345,000,000 and is guaranteed under the transit

category. The recommended program level of $3,592,000,000 is comprised of an appropriation of $718,400,000 from the general fund and

$2,873,600,000 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 $3,592,000,000, the Committee’s

recommendation includes the following distribution:

Urbanized areas (U.S.C. 5307) ............................................................. $3,199,959,806

Oversight ................................................................................................ 17,202,976

Clean fuels (sec. 5308) ........................................................................... 50,000,000

Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310) ........................................................... 84,604,801

Non-urbanized areas (sec. 5311) ........................................................... 223,432,467

Over-the-road bus accessibility program ............................................. 6,950,000

Alaska Railroad ..................................................................................... 4,849,950

Salt Lake City Olympic loaned bus program ...................................... 5,000,000

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 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 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

108

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 2002 for the over-the-road accessibility program. This program is designed to assist operator of

over-the-road buses to finance 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,

$5,200,000 shall be available for operators of over-the-road buses in

intercity fixed route service. In addition, $1,700,000 shall be available for operators for other over-the-road bus service, including

local commuter service and charter or tour service.

Salt Lake City Olympic loaned bus program.—The Committee

recommends that $5,000,000 be set-aside from the formula grants

program to fund the Salt Lake City Olympic loaned bus program.

Funds are to be allocated to the Utah Department of Transportation and are to be available for grants for the costs of planning,

delivery and temporary use of transit vehicles for special transportation needs and construction of temporary transportation facilities

for the XIX Winter Olympiad and the VIII Paralympiad for the

Disabled, to be held in Salt Lake City, Utah. In allocating the

funds, the Secretary shall make grants to the Utah Department of

Transportation, and such grants shall not be subject to any local

share requirement or limitation on operating assistance under this

Act or the Federal Transit Act, as amended This appropriation is

similar to one provided in support of the Summer Olympic Games

in Atlanta in the fiscal year 1995 Department of Transportation

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.

The following table displays the state-by-state distribution of the

formula funds within each of the program categories:

109


Insert offset folio 57 here 73279.016
110


Insert offset folio 58 here 73279.017
111


Insert offset folio 59 here 73279.018
112


Insert offset folio 01 here 73279.053
113


Insert offset folio 02 here 73279.054
114


Insert offset folio 62 here 73279.021
115


Insert offset folio 63 here 73279.022
116


Insert offset folio 64 here 73279.023
117


Insert offset folio 03 here 73279.055
118


Insert offset folio 04 here 73279.056
119


Insert offset folio 67 here 73279.026
120


Insert offset folio 68 here 73279.027
121


Insert offset folio 05 here 73279.057
122


Insert offset folio 70 here 73279.029
123


Insert offset folio 06 here 73279.058
124


Insert offset folio 72 here 73279.031
125


Insert offset folio 07 here 73279.059
126

UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

Appropriation (General fund)Limitation on obligations (Trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ....................... $1,200,000 ($4,800,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................... 1,200,000 (4,800,000)

Recommended in the bill .................................... 1,200,000 (4,800,000)

Bill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................. ............................ ............................

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................ ............................ ............................ 1Does not reflect rescission of $13,200 pursuant to section 1403 of P.L. 106–554.

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 2001. 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 2001 1 ....................... $22,200,000 ($87,800,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................... 23,000,000 (93,000,000)

Recommended in the bill .................................... 23,000,000 (93,000,000)

Bill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................. +800,000 (+5,200,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................ ............................ ............................ 1Does not reflect rescission of $242,000 pursuant to section 1403 of P.L. 106–554.

The accompanying bill provides a total of $116,000,000 for tran- sit planning and research. The recommendation is $6,000,000 more

than provided in fiscal year 2001 and the same level as in the

budget request. This appropriation is guaranteed under the transit

funding category. The recommended program level of $116,000,000 is comprised

of an appropriation of $23,000,000 from the general fund and

$93,000,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass transit

account of the highway trust fund.

The bill contains language specifying that $55,422,400 shall be

available for metropolitan planning; $11,577,600 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.

TEA–21 earmarks the following projects within the funds provided for the national program in fiscal year 2002:

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 (including BRT evaluation) ........................... $3,500,000

Santa Barbara Electric Transportation Institute ............................... 500,000

Electric Vehicle Institute, Tennessee ................................................... 500,000

Hennepin County community transportation, Minnesota .................. 1,000,000

University of South Florida, rapid bus initiative ................................ 250,000

127

Southeast Michigan transportation feasibility study ......................... 500,000

Long Island, New York City links study ............................................. 250,000

Crystal City-Potomac yard transit alternatives analysis ................... 250,000

The following reductions were made to the budget request for national planning and research program:

Deny funding for Garrett Morgan program ......................................... ¥$200,000

Hold international mass transportation to fiscal year 2001 level ..... ¥200,000

Joblinks.—The Committee has included $1,000,000 for Joblinks,

as requested.

TRUST FUND SHARE OF EXPENSES

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 ..................................................... ($5,016,600,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................... (5,397,800,000)

Recommended in the bill ............................................................... (5,397,800,000)

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .............................................. (+381,200,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ............................................ (—)

For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided $5,397,800,000

for liquidation of contract authorization. The increase over last

year is necessary to pay outstanding obligations of the various

transit programs at the levels contained in TEA–21.

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriation

(General fund)

Limitation on

obligations

(Trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ............... $529,200,000 ($2,116,800,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ............... 568,200,000 (2,272,800,000)

Recommended in the bill ............................ 568,200,000 (2,272,800,000)

Bill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .......... +39,000,000 +156,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ........ ................................ ................................ 1Does not reflect rescission of $5,941,100 pursuant to section 1403 of P.L. 106–554 or $4,500,000 in direct

appropriations pursuant to sections 1105, 1107, and 1123 of P.L. 106–554.

The accompanying bill provides a total of $2,841,000,000 to be

available for capital investment grants. The recommendation is

$195,000,000 more than provided in fiscal year 2001 and the same

level as the budget request. This appropriation is guaranteed under

the transit category. The recommended program level of $2,841,000,000 is comprised of an appropriation of $568,200,000 from the general fund and

$2,272,800,000 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:

2001 enacted 2002 request Recommended

in the bill

Fixed guideway modernization ............................................ $1,058,400,000 $1,136,400,000 $1,136,400,000

New starts ........................................................................... 1,058,400,000 1,136,400,000 1,136,400,000

Bus and bus facilities ........................................................ 529,200,000 568,200,000 568,200,000

Total ....................................................................... 2,646,000,000 2,841,000,000 2,841,000,000

128

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 1999 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act and previous Acts

are available for reallocation in fiscal year 2002 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 2002 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.

The Committee, however, directs the FTA not to reallocate funds

provided in the fiscal year 1999 Department of Transportation and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act or previous Acts for the following new start projects:

Riverside County—San Jacinto, CA branch line project ................. $496,280

Savannah, GA water taxi .................................................................. 496,280

The Committee makes these exceptions based on FTA information that these funds are likely to be awarded by the fourth quarter

of fiscal year 2001 or soon thereafter.

In addition, the Committee directs the FTA not to reallocate

funds provided in the fiscal year 1999 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act or previous Acts

for the following bus and bus facilities projects:

Buffalo Auditorium International Center ......................................... $3,473,750

Cotati/Santa Rosa Intermodal Facility ............................................. 750,000

Cotati/Santa Rosa/Rohnert Park Intermodal Facilities .................. 744,375

Fayette County, PA buses ................................................................. 225,475

Red Rose, PA transit bus terminal ................................................... 992,500

Somerset County, PA bus facilities and buses ................................. 173,668

Ulster County, NY bus facilities and equipment ............................. 992,500

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.

BUSES AND BUS FACILITIES

The accompanying bill provides $568,200,000 for bus purchases

and bus facilities, including maintenance garages and intermodal

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.

129

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 supplemented with $24,312,304 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. The following unexpended sums from

previous appropriations Acts are reallocated:

North Slope Borough, AK buses ........................................................... $496,250

Birmingham—Jefferson County, AL buses ......................................... 899,853

Pritchard, AL bus and bus facilities .................................................... 496,250

Ukiah, CA Transit Center ..................................................................... 496,250

Denver, CO, Stapleton intermodal center ........................................... 1,240,625

Washington, D.C. intermodal transportation center .......................... 2,481,250

Gary, IN transit consortium buses ....................................................... 310,157

Jefferson Parish, LA buses and bus-related facilities ......................... 347,375

Louisiana state infrastructure bank transit account .......................... 347,375

Albuquerque, NM buses, paratransit, and bus facility ...................... 3,721,875

Northern NM park and ride facilities .................................................. 1,985,000

Minneola/Hicksville, NY Long Island railroad intermodal centers ... 1,240,625

Rome, NY intermodal center ................................................................ 397,000

Lane County, OR bus rapid transit ...................................................... 4,367,000

Wilkes-Barre, PA intermodal facility ................................................... 2,706,419

Chambersburg, PA transit authority buses ......................................... 297,750

Chambersburg, PA transit authority intermodal center .................... 992,500

Towamencin township, PA intermodal bus transportation center .... 1,488,750

Fuel cell bus program.—The Committee directs that none of the

funds available under this heading shall be available for section

3015(b) of TEA–21 for the fuel cell bus and bus facilities program.

The Committee is aware of several private manufacturers that are

in the process of producing fuel cell buses, including one that will

be on the commercial market by 2004. Furthermore, the Committee

is aware of no transit agencies that have expressed an interest in

procuring the fuel cell bus technology being developed by Georgetown University. Consequently, the Committee believes that continuing this federal investment is not a wise use of taxpayer

money.

King County Metro.—Funds contained in the fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations

Act for the King County Metro Eastgate park and ride facility shall

also be made available for the Issaquah Highlands park and ride

facility.

Lowell, Massachusetts transit hub.—Funds contained in the fiscal

year 2001 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act under ‘‘Bus and bus facilities’’ for the Lowell transit hub shall also be made available for the Hale Street bus maintenance/operations center.

Municipal Transit Operators Coalition, CA.—Funds contained in

the fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act under ‘‘Bus and bus facilities’’ for the

130

Municipal Transit Operators Coalition buses shall also be made

available for bus facilities.

Bill language on bus formula proposal.—The Committee has denied bill language that would allocate funding to states for bus and

bus facilities by formula. In the past, formula programs have largely benefited older, urban cities and two states in particular, New

York and California. Based on the formula developed by the department for bus and bus facilities, this inequity remains intact.

The Committee cannot agree to a proposal that disproportionately

favors older, urban cities and a few states at the expense of all

other needy communities.

The Committee recommendation assumes the following distribution of bus and bus facilities funds:

State of Alabama:

Gadsden Transportation Services ................................................. $250,000

Huntsville Intermodal Transit Facility ........................................ 1,000,000

Mobile Waterfront Terminal .......................................................... 5,000,000

Montgomery Union Station/Molston St. intermodal facility and

parking ......................................................................................... 3,000,000

University of South Alabama ........................................................ 2,500,000

State of Alaska:

City of Wasilla bus facility ............................................................. 1,200,000

Mat-su Community Transit buses and facilities .......................... 2,800,000

Seward transit terminal facility and trolley ................................ 200,000

State of Arkansas:

State of Arkansas bus and bus facilities ...................................... 3,000,000

State of Arizona:

City of Glendale buses ................................................................... 300,000

RPTA of Phoenix alternatively fueled buses and facilities ......... 6,000,000

Sun Tran CNG replacement buses ............................................... 3,500,000

Tucson Intermodal Center ............................................................. 3,600,000

State of California:

Anaheim Resort Transit Project .................................................... 1,000,000

Antelope Valley Transit Authority bus facilities ......................... 1,000,000

Belle Vista park and ride ............................................................... 500,000

Boyle Heights bus facility .............................................................. 700,000

City of Burbank shuttle buses ....................................................... 900,000

City of Calabasas CNG smart shuttle .......................................... 500,000

City of Carpinteria electric-gasoline hybrid bus .......................... 750,000

Chinatown Intermodal Transportation Center ............................ 3,500,000

City of Commerce CNG bus and bus facilities ............................. 2,000,000

City of Fresno buses ....................................................................... 1,500,000

City of Monrovia natural gas vehicle fueling facility .................. 270,000

City of Sierra Madre bus replacement .......................................... 150,000

City of Visalia transit center ......................................................... 5,000,000

County of Amador bus replacement .............................................. 119,000

County of Calaveras bus fleet replacement .................................. 105,000

County of El Dorado bus fleet expansion ..................................... 672,000

Davis, Sacramento hydrogen bus technology ............................... 1,800,000

El Garces train/intermodal station ............................................... 3,000,000

Foothill Transit, CNG bus and bus facilities ............................... 2,000,000

Glendale Beeline CNG buses ......................................................... 700,000

Imperial Valley CNG bus maintenance facility ........................... 500,000

Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority bus facility; park

and ride ........................................................................................ 1,500,000

Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority buses ........ 3,350,000

Merced County Transit CNG buses .............................................. 750,000

City of Modesto, bus facilities ........................................................ 250,000

Monterey-Salinas Transit buses and bus facility ........................ 3,000,000

Morongo Basin Transit maintenance and administration facility ................................................................................................. 1,000,000

MUNI Central Control Facility ..................................................... 2,000,000

Municipal Transit Operators Coalition ......................................... 4,000,000

North Ukiah Transit Center .......................................................... 600,000

Pasadena Area Rapid Transit System .......................................... 1,100,000

131

Placer County, CNG bus project ................................................... 1,500,000

Sacramento Regional bus and bus facilities ................................. 2,000,000

San Bernardino CNG/LNG buses .................................................. 750,000

San Francisco MUNI CNG bus and facilities .............................. 2,250,000

San Mateo County Transit Districts clean fuel buses ................. 3,000,000

Sam Trans zero-emissions fuel cell buses .................................... 2,000,000

San Dieguito Transportation Cooperative .................................... 500,000

Santa Ana bus base ........................................................................ 2,500,000

Santa Barbara Hybrid Bus rapid transit project ......................... 4,000,000

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority clean fuel bus

program ........................................................................................ 500,000

Santa Fe Springs CNG bus replacement ...................................... 500,000

Sierra Madre Villa intermodal transportation center ................. 750,000

Solana Beach intermodal transit station ...................................... 1,000,000

Sonoma County landfill gas conversion facility ........................... 1,000,000

South Pasadena circulator bus ...................................................... 600,000

Sun Line Transit hydrogen refueling station ............................... 1,000,000

Transportation Hub at the Village of Indian Hills ...................... 3,000,000

Yolo County, CNG buses ................................................................ 2,000,000

State of Colorado:

Colorado Transit Coalition bus and bus facilities ........................ 7,000,000

State of Connecticut:

Bridgeport intermodal transportation center ............................... 5,000,000

East Haddam transit vehicles ....................................................... 420,000

Greater New Haven Transit District CNG vehicle project ......... 1,134,000

New Haven bus facility .................................................................. 1,000,000

District of Columbia:

WMATA buses ................................................................................ 8,000,000

State of Delaware:

Delaware Transit Corporation buses ............................................ 1,600,000

Wrangle Hill buses and maintenance facility .............................. 2,000,000

State of Florida:

Broward County Alternative Vehicle Mass Transit bus and bus

facilities ........................................................................................ 3,000,000

DeLand intermodal center ............................................................. 2,000,000

Duval County/JTA community transportation coordinator program, paratransit vehicles and equipment ............................... 2,000,000

Gainesville Regional Transit System, buses ................................ 1,000,000

Hillsborough Area Regional Transit buses ................................... 1,500,000

Jacksonville Transit Authority buses ........................................... 1,500,000

LYNX bus & bus facilities ............................................................. 2,400,000

Miami Beach, electrowave shuttle service .................................... 5,000,000

Miami-Dade bus fleet ..................................................................... 4,000,000

Northeast Miami-Dade passenger center ..................................... 750,000

Palm Tran buses ............................................................................. 1,000,000

Pinellas Suncoast Transit buses, trolleys, and information

technology .................................................................................... 5,500,000

South Miami intermodal pedestrian access project ..................... 2,000,000

Tallahassee bus facilities ............................................................... 400,000

TALTRAN intermodal center ........................................................ 1,200,000

Tri-Rail Cypress Creek intermodal facilities ................................ 1,000,000

VOTRAN buses ............................................................................... 3,500,000

Winter Haven Area Transit bus and bus facilities ...................... 3,000,000

State of Georgia:

Chatham Area Transit bus and bus facilities .............................. 4,600,000

Cobb County Community Transit bus facilities ........................... 2,200,000

Georgia Department of Transportation replacement buses ........ 2,000,000

Georgia Regional Transit Authority buses and bus facilities ..... 1,500,000

Gwinnett County operations and maintenance facility ............... 1,000,000

Macon Terminal Station ................................................................ 1,500,000

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, clean fuel buses 5,500,000

State of Hawaii:

Middle Street Transit Center ........................................................ 1,500,000

State of Iowa:

State of Iowa bus and bus facilities .............................................. 10,000,000

State of Idaho:

Idaho Transit Coalition bus and bus facilities ............................. 3,526,000

State of Illinois:

Illinois Statewide bus and bus facilities ....................................... 23,000,000

132

State of Indiana:

Cherry Street Project multi-modal facility ................................... 1,400,000

Indiana Transit Consortium bus and bus facilities ..................... 3,800,000

Indianapolis downtown transit facility ......................................... 1,000,000

South Bend Public Transportation Corporation buses ................ 1,000,000

West Lafayette Transit Project bus and bus facilities ................ 2,100,000

State of Kansas:

Fort Scott Public Transit bus and bus facilities .......................... 300,000

Kansas City Area Transportation Authority buses ..................... 2,000,000

Kansas DOT, buses ........................................................................ 3,000,000

Topeka Quincy Street Station ....................................................... 600,000

Wichita Transit Authority buses ................................................... 1,760,000

Commonwealth of Kentucky:

Audubon Area Community Services cutaways ............................ 200,000

Bluegrass Community Action Services vans ................................ 852,000

Central Kentucky Community Action Council vans .................... 272,000

City of Frankfort Transit Program, buses .................................... 96,000

City of Maysville buses .................................................................. 136,000

Community Action Council of Fayette/Lexington Vans .............. 46,000

Community Action of Southern Kentucky cutaways ................... 200,000

Kentucky Rivers Foothills vans ..................................................... 136,000

Lake Cumberland Community Services vans .............................. 80,000

Leslie County parking structure ................................................... 4,000,000

Pikeville parking and transit facility ............................................ 10,000,000

Southern & Eastern Kentucky Transit vehicles .......................... 4,300,000

Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky buses ........................... 3,000,000

Transit Authority of River City bus and bus facilities ................ 4,000,000

State of Louisiana:

Louisiana Public Transit Association bus and bus facilities ...... 13,400,000

Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

Attleboro intermodal facilities ....................................................... 1,000,000

Berkshire Regional Transit Authority buses ............................... 2,000,000

Brockton intermodal transit center ............................................... 1,000,000

Gallagher Intermodal Transportation bus hub and CNG

trolleys ......................................................................................... 1,000,000

Holyoke Pulse Center ..................................................................... 2,000,000

Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority (Amesbury) bus

and bus facilities ......................................................................... 500,000

Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority (Lawrence) bus

and bus facilities ......................................................................... 500,000

MetroWest bus and bus facilities .................................................. 1,000,000

Montachusett intermodal facilities and parking in Fitchburg/N.

Leominster ................................................................................... 5,000,000

Montachusett Regional Transit Authority bus facilities ............. 100,000

Salem/Beverly Intermodal Center ................................................. 500,000

Union Station Intermodal redevelopment project ........................ 2,000,000

State of Maryland:

Maryland Statewide bus and bus facilities .................................. 6,000,000

State of Maine:

Maine Statewide bus and bus facilities ........................................ 1,000,000

State of Michigan:

Alger County Public Transit .......................................................... 474,000

Antrium County Transportation buses ......................................... 86,000

Barry County Transit buses .......................................................... 74,000

Bay Area Transit Authority ........................................................... 783,000

Berrien County Dept. of Planning & Public Works buses .......... 359,000

Blue Water Area Transportation Commission bus facilities ...... 3,000,000

Capital Area Transit Authority bus and bus facilities ................ 1,000,000

Charlevoix County Public Transit ................................................. 242,000

City of Niles bus and bus facilities ............................................... 42,000

Crawford County Transportation Authority buses ...................... 358,000

Delta Co. Transit Authority ........................................................... 138,000

Detroit Department of Transportation buses ............................... 7,000,000

Eastern UP Transportation Authority .......................................... 132,000

Flint Mass Transportation Authority buses ................................. 500,000

Greater Lapeer Transportation Authority bus and bus facilities 791,000

Harbor Transit bus and bus facilities ........................................... 378,000

Interurban Transit Authority buses ............................................. 82,000

Interurban Transit Partnership surface transportation center .. 4,000,000

133

Ionia Area Transportation Dial-a-Ride ......................................... 284,000

Isabella County facilities and equipment ..................................... 227,000

Kalamazoo County Care-A-Van buses and equipment ................ 130,000

Kalkaska Public Transit buses ...................................................... 506,000

Livingston Essential Transportation Service buses and

equipment .................................................................................... 247,000

Ludington Transit Facility ............................................................. 1,000,000

Midland County buses ................................................................... 628,000

Milan Public Transit buses ............................................................ 130,800

Muskegon Area Transit facility ..................................................... 1,600,000

Northern Oakland Transportation Authority .............................. 173,000

Otsego County Public Transit ....................................................... 1,073,000

Sault Ste. Marie dial-a-ride ........................................................... 88,000

Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation

buses ............................................................................................ 4,000,000

Van Buren County Public Transit buses ...................................... 201,000

State of Minnesota:

Duluth Transit Authority bus and bus facilities ......................... 1,000,000

Grand Rapids/Gilbert bus and bus facilities ................................ 210,000

Metro transit bus and bus facilities .............................................. 21,000,000

Moorhead bus and bus facilities .................................................... 100,000

Mower County Public Transit Initiative facility .......................... 1,000,000

Rush Line Corridor bus and bus facilities .................................... 1,000,000

St. Cloud bus and bus facilities ..................................................... 2,760,000

State of Missouri:

Cab Care paratransit facility ......................................................... 500,000

Kansas City Area Transportation Authority buses ..................... 1,000,000

Missouri Pacific Depot ................................................................... 736,000

Southwest Missouri State University intermodal transfer facility ................................................................................................. 1,000,000

Southeast Missouri State, Dunklin, Mississippi, Scott, Stoddard, and Cape Giradeau Counties bus and facilities ............. 3,000,000

St. Louis Bi-State Development Agency bus replacement .......... 5,000,000

State of Mississippi:

Harrison county multimodal center .............................................. 2,000,000

Jackson Downtown Multi-Modal Transportation Center ............ 2,000,000

State of Montana

Montana statewide bus and bus facilities .................................... 2,100,000

State of North Carolina:

North Carolina bus and bus facilities ........................................... 8,000,000

State of North Dakota:

NDSU Transit Center for Small Urban Areas ............................. 662,000

North Dakota Statewide Capital Transit bus and bus facilities 3,000,000

State of Nevada:

Las Vegas Boulevard North Corridor BRT, clean diesel-electric

buses ............................................................................................ 3,500,000

Reno and Sparks intermodal centers ............................................ 2,000,000

Reno Suburban transit coaches ..................................................... 1,000,000

State of New Hampshire:

Town of Ossipee multimodal visitor center .................................. 1,600,000

State of New Jersey:

Bergen intermodal stations, park and ride and shuttle service 5,000,000

Middlesex County jitney transit buses ......................................... 500,000

Trenton Rail Station rehabilitation .............................................. 5,000,000

State of New Mexico:

Albuquerque buses and paratransit vehicles ............................... 1,000,000

Las Cruces transit transfer facility ............................................... 2,000,000

Village of Taos Ski Valley bus and bus facilities ......................... 500,000

West Side Transit facility .............................................................. 2,000,000

State of New York:

Binghamton intermodal terminal .................................................. 2,400,000

Greater Glens Falls Transit bus and bus facilities ...................... 500,000

Jamaica intermodal facility ........................................................... 1,000,000

Martin Street Station ..................................................................... 650,000

MTA Long Island buses ................................................................. 4,000,000

Nassau University Medical Center buses ..................................... 1,000,000

New Rochelle Intermodal Center .................................................. 1,500,000

New York City Dept of Transportation, CNG buses and

facilities ........................................................................................ 5,000,000

134

Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority buses ...................... 2,560,000

Pelham trolley ................................................................................. 260,000

Poughkeepsie intermodal project .................................................. 2,000,000

Rochester bus and facilities ........................................................... 2,000,000

Saratoga Springs intermodal station ............................................ 2,500,000

Station Plaza commuter parking lot ............................................. 1,000,000

Sullivan County Coordinated Public Transportation Service

bus facility ................................................................................... 1,000,000

Tompkins Consolidated Area transit center ................................. 624,000

Union Station—Oneida County facilities ..................................... 2,500,000

Westchester County Bee-Line low emission buses ...................... 3,000,000

State of Ohio:

Ohio Public Transit Association bus and bus facilities ............... 20,000,000

State of Oklahoma:

Oklahoma Department of Transportation Transit Program bus

and bus facilities ......................................................................... 6,000,000

State of Oregon:

Canby Transit buses ...................................................................... 250,000

Clackamas Regional Transit Center ............................................. 1,000,000

Lincoln County transportation service district bus garage ......... 75,000

Milwaukee Transit Center ............................................................. 350,000

Rogue Valley Transit District, CNG buses ................................... 1,680,000

Salem Area Mass Transit, CNG buses ......................................... 2,000,000

Tillamook County Transportation District bus facilities ............ 720,000

Wasco County buses ....................................................................... 105,000

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

Altoona bus facility (TEA–21) ....................................................... 3,000,000

Allentown intermodal transportation center ................................ 1,000,000

Area Transit Authority of North Central PA ............................... 2,000,000

Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority buses and bus

facilities ........................................................................................ 5,600,000

Bucks County intermodal facility improvements ......................... 1,500,000

Butler Township multi-modal transfer center ............................. 1,000,000

Callowhill bus garage replacement project .................................. 2,500,000

Cambria County operations and maintenance facility ................ 1,000,000

Centre Area Transportation Authority CNG buses ..................... 1,600,000

County of Lackawanna Transit bus facility ................................. 1,000,000

Doylestown Area Regional Transit buses ..................................... 100,000

Endless Mountain Transportation Authority bus and bus

facilities ........................................................................................ 350,000

Fayette County Transit facility ..................................................... 2,000,000

Indiana County Transit Authority bus facilities ......................... 900,000

Lehigh & Northampton Transportation Authority bus facility .. 1,000,000

Luzerne County Transit Authority buses ..................................... 500,000

Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority buses ..................................... 500,000

Mid-County Transit Authority bus and bus facilities ................. 490,000

Monroe County Transit Authority park and ride ........................ 1,200,000

Montgomery County intermodal facility ....................................... 2,000,000

Port Authority of Allegheny County buses ................................... 2,500,000

Red Rose transit transfer center ................................................... 1,000,000

Schuylkill Transportation System buses ...................................... 600,000

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority trackless

trolleys ......................................................................................... 2,000,000

Somerset County Transportation System buses .......................... 250,000

York County bus replacement ....................................................... 2,400,000

State of Rhode Island:

Rhode Island Public Transit Authority buses and CNG buses 4,500,000

State of South Carolina:

South Carolina Statewide bus and bus facilities ......................... 11,000,000

State of Tennessee:

Tennessee Statewide bus replacements and bus facilities .......... 12,000,000

State of Texas:

Abilene bus replacement ................................................................ 1,000,000

Brownsville multimodal facility study .......................................... 100,000

Capital Metro park and ride .......................................................... 500,000

City of Huntsville buses ................................................................. 750,000

Connection Capital Project for Community Transit Facilities ... 500,000

Fort Worth Transportation Authority CNG buses ...................... 2,500,000

Fort Worth intermodal center park and ride facility .................. 500,000

135

Fort Worth 9th Street Transfer Station ....................................... 1,600,000

Houston Barker Cypress park and ride ........................................ 10,100,000

Houston Main Street Corridor Master Plan ................................. 1,000,000

Liberty County buses ..................................................................... 750,000

North East Transportation System ............................................... 260,000

San Antonio VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority buses ............ 750,000

Sun Metro bus and bus facilities ................................................... 1,000,000

Texas Tech University park and ride; buses ................................ 2,000,000

Waco Transit maintenance and administration facility .............. 2,500,000

Woodlands District park and ride ................................................. 1,000,000

State of Utah:

Utah Transit Authority and Park City Transit buses ................. 2,000,000

Utah Transit Authority intermodal terminals ............................. 2,000,000

Commonwealth of Virginia:

Colonial Williamsburg CNG buses ................................................ 2,000,000

Greater Richmond Transit Downtown Transit Center ................ 2,000,000

Hampton Roads Regional buses .................................................... 1,000,000

Main Street Multimodal Center .................................................... 1,000,000

Potomac & Rappahannock Transportation Commission buses .. 3,000,000

Roanoke Area Dial-A-Ride bus facility ......................................... 2,000,000

Virgin Islands:

Virgin Islands Transit (VITRAN) buses ....................................... 1,000,000

State of Vermont:

State of Vermont bus and bus facilities ........................................ 1,500,000

State of Washington:

Bellevue Transportation Center .................................................... 3,100,000

City of Kent, Second Avenue extension ........................................ 900,000

Clallam Transit buses .................................................................... 440,000

Everett Transit buses ..................................................................... 1,000,000

Grays Harbor Transit buses .......................................................... 928,000

I–5 Trade Corridor/99th St. park and ride facility ...................... 1,000,000

Link Transit, Chelan and Douglas Counties buses ..................... 336,000

Mason County Transportation Authority buses ........................... 385,000

Pierce Transit CNG buses ............................................................. 2,000,000

Snohomish County Community Transit park and ride ............... 2,000,000

Valley Transit CNG buses ............................................................. 748,000

State of Wisconsin:

Wisconsin Area Transit bus and bus facilities ............................. 21,000,000

State of West Virginia:

Huntington Tri-State Transit Authority bus facility ................... 1,500,000

Morgantown Intermodal parking facility ..................................... 4,000,000

State of Wyoming:

Southern Teton Area Rapid Transit bus facility .......................... 1,000,000

Wyoming Department of Transportation bus and bus facilities 1,200,000

Section 5327 oversight .......................................................................... 5,682,000

FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION

The accompanying bill provides $1,136,400,000 from the capital

investment grants program to modernize existing rail transit systems. These funds are to be redistributed, consistent with the provisions of TEA–21, as follows:

SECTION 5309 FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION APPORTIONMENTS

State

Fiscal year— Change from fiscal year 2001 2001 2002

Alaska ................................................................................................... .......................... $7,047,502 +$7,047,502

Arizona .................................................................................................. $1,439,247 1,644,697 +205,450

California .............................................................................................. 114,341,490 126,085,672 +11,744,182

Colorado ................................................................................................ 1,495,770 1,685,042 +189,272

Connecticut ........................................................................................... 37,684,635 38,882,061 +1,197,426

Delaware ............................................................................................... 800,223 925,702 +125,479

District of Columbia ............................................................................. 48,455,476 56,905,623 +8,450,147

Florida ................................................................................................... 14,946,701 17,442,156 +2,495,455

Georgia .................................................................................................. 21,119,647 24,732,420 +3,612,773

Hawaii ................................................................................................... 926,871 1,104,095 +177,224

136

SECTION 5309 FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION APPORTIONMENTS—Continued

State

Fiscal year— Change from fiscal year 2001 2001 2002

Illinois ................................................................................................... 119,004,248 123,714,778 +4,710,530

Indiana .................................................................................................. 8,587,379 9,066,393 +479,014

Louisiana ............................................................................................... 2,824,580 2,904,984 +80,404

Maryland ............................................................................................... 24,900,136 27,174,472 +2,274,336

Massachusetts ...................................................................................... 66,280,739 69,275,018 +2,994,279

Michigan ............................................................................................... 337,140 390,401 +53,261

Minnesota .............................................................................................. 3,698,909 4,169,386 +470,477

Missouri ................................................................................................. 3,453,467 4,019,407 +565,940

New Jersey ............................................................................................. 89,314,154 92,768,993 +3,454,839

New York ............................................................................................... 334,354,119 350,286,663 +15,932,544

Ohio ....................................................................................................... 16,758,504 17,728,816 +970,312

Oregon ................................................................................................... 3,483,792 4,104,767 +620,975

Pennsylvania ......................................................................................... 100,278,339 103,484,030 +3,205,691

Puerto Rico ............................................................................................ 2,042,249 2,401,851 +359,602

Rhode Island ......................................................................................... 1,589,962 1,843,732, +253,770

Tennessee .............................................................................................. 250,065 309,837 +59,772

Texas ..................................................................................................... 6,972,957 8,110,941 +1,137,984

Virginia .................................................................................................. 5,245,133 6,133,234 +888,101

Washington ........................................................................................... 17,162,880 19,883,930 +2,721,050

Wisconsin .............................................................................................. 691,930 809,397 +117,467

Total ......................................................................................... 1,048,440,742 1,125,036,000 76,595,258

1 percent oversight ............................................................................... 7,920,536 11,364,000 +3,443,464

Total appropriation .................................................................. 1,056,361,278 1,136,400,000 +80,038,722

NEW STARTS

The accompanying bill provides $1,136,400,000 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

$30,151,779 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:

Birmingham, AL alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering

work (1999) ......................................................................................... $992,550

Orange County, CA transitway project (1999) .................................... 2,481,380

San Diego, CA Mid Coast corridor project (1999) ............................... 1,985,100

Roaring Fork valley, CO project (1998) ............................................... 793,530

North front range, CO corridor feasibility study (1999) ..................... 496,280

Hartford, CT bus circulator (1999) ....................................................... 888,830

Hartford, CT Old Saybrook project (1999) ........................................... 496,280

Baltimore, MD central downtown transit alternatives MIS (1999) ... 496,280

Jackson, MS intermodal corridor (1998) .............................................. 2,990,300

Omaha, NE trolley system (1999) ........................................................ 992,550

Albuquerque, NM light rail project (1999) .......................................... 2,954,765

Cleveland, OH Berea red line extension to Hopkins airport (1999) 992,550

Harrisburg, PA capital area transit/corridor one project (1999) ........ 992,550

Philadelphia-Reading, PA SEPTA Schuylkill Valley metro (1999) ... 2,977,660

Philadelphia, PA SEPTA cross county metro project (1999) .............. 352,550

Nashville, TN regional commuter rail project (1999) ......................... 680,550

Galveston, TX rail trolley extension project (1998) ............................ 1,460,730

Burlington-Essex, VT commuter rail project (1998) ........................... 2,883,828

137

Burlington-Essex, VT commuter rail project (1999) ........................... 25,166

King County, WA Elliot Bay water taxi (1999) ................................... 248,140

Morgantown, WV fixed guideway modernization project (1999) ....... 3,970,210

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, not two months later. Without a timely submission of

this information the Committee cannot make well informed decisions about new starts projects.

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 41 FFGAs have been signed or recommended in Presidential budgets. Currently, there are 26 existing

FFGAs. The total capital cost for these projects is $18.9 billion and

the federal commitment is $9 billion.

The number of potential new starts projects is expanding rapidly.

As of February 2001, FTA is: (1) tracking over 110 current transit

capital investment planning studies that are estimated to cost over

$60 billion, if funded to their completion; (2) working with 28

projects in the preliminary engineering (PE) phase of project development, that have a total capital cost of $16.4 billion; and (3) working with 13 projects in the final design phase of project development, that have an estimated capital cost of $3.6 billion. 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 2002, of the $1.136 billion guaranteed for new starts projects, approximately $990,000,000 is allocated to projects

that currently have an FFGA. In addition, approximately

$20,000,000 is reserved for Alaska and Hawaii ferries and project

management oversight activities (required by TEA–21). This leaves

approximately $126,000,000 in truly discretionary funds that can

be allocated to new starts projects without FFGAs.

Since demand has too quickly outstripped available resources,

the Committee has had to make difficult decisions in this area. The

Committee recommendation adhers to the following guidelines:

First, the Committee has tried to fund every project that has a current FFGA at its schedule 6 level unless the project was 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

2003. 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. As

noted earlier, local project sponsors of new rail extensions or

busways can use formula funds for alternatives analysis activities

rather than seek section 5309 discretionary set-asides. Fourth, for

projects in final design or preliminary engineering, significant appropriations have been provided for those that have a federal share

of no more than 60 percent. Less 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 they plan to contribute and find ways to

138

increase their local share. Fifth, the Committee has not made any

new commitments this year to projects that have not previously received section 5309 new starts funding, or for any projects that

may be eligible for fixed guideway modernization funding.

While the Committee has funded worthy new starts projects

under the section 5309 program, communities are strongly encouraged to provide higher non-federal financial participation to these

projects, particularly in the early developmental phases. Further,

although the maximum federal contribution remains at 80 percent,

existing demand requires that federal dollars be leveraged to a

greater extent than current projections, for that reason, the Committee is very supportive of requiring local sponsors to increase

their contributions to projects so that the federal share is no greater than 60 percent. This would allow a more equitable disbursement of federal funds across communities seeking new starts funding. The Committee intends to base its future budget decisions on

whether or not communities have raised their financial commitment to cover at least forty percent of a project’s total capital costs.

In total, the $1,166,551,779 provided in this Act together with,

previous appropriations, are to be distributed as follows:

Amount

Alaska or Hawaii ferry projects ............................................................ $10,296,000

Atlanta, Georgia, North line extension project ................................... 25,000,000

Baltimore, Maryland, central light rail transit double track project 10,867,000

Boston, Massachusetts, South Boston Piers transitway project ........ 11,203,169

Charlotte, North Carolina, South corridor light rail transit project 5,000,000

Chicago, Illinois, Douglas branch reconstruction project ................... 35,000,000

Chicago, Illinois, Metra North central corridor commuter project .... 23,000,000

Chicago, Illinois, Metra South West corridor commuter rail project 19,118,735

Chicago, Illinois, Metra Union Pacific West line extension project 20,000,000

Chicago, Illinois, Ravenswood reconstruction project ......................... 2,000,000

Cleveland, Ohio, Euclid corridor transportation project ..................... 5,000,000

Dallas, Texas, North central light rail transit extension project ....... 70,000,000

Denver, Colorado, Southeast corridor light rail transit project ......... 60,000,000

Denver, Colorado, Southwest corridor light rail transit project ........ 192,492

Dulles corridor, Virginia, bus rapid transit project ............................ 25,000,000

Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Tri-Rail commuter rail upgrades project 30,000,000

Johnson County, Kansas-Kansas City, Missouri, I–35 commuter

rail project ........................................................................................... 3,000,000

Largo, Maryland, metrorail extension project ..................................... 60,000,000

Little Rock, Arkansas, river rail project .............................................. 1,800,000

Long Island Rail Road, New York, East Side access project ............. 10,000,000

Los Angeles, California, East Side corridor light rail transit project 5,500,000

Los Angeles North Hollywood, California, extension project ............. 49,686,469

Lowell, Massachusetts-Nashua, New Hampshire, commuter rail extension project .................................................................................... 3,000,000

Maryland (MARC) commuter rail improvements project ................... 12,000,000

Memphis, Tennessee, Medical center rail extension project .............. 19,170,000

Miami, Florida, South Miami-Dade busway extension project .......... 5,000,000

Minneapolis-Rice, Minnesota, Northstar corridor commuter rail

project .................................................................................................. 10,000,000

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, Hiawatha corridor project ............ 50,000,000

Nashville, Tennessee, East corridor commuter rail project ............... 4,000,000

Newark-Elizabeth, New Jersey, rail link project ................................ 20,000,000

New Britain-Hartford, Connecticut, busway project .......................... 4,000,000

New Jersey Hudson Bergen light rail transit project ......................... 141,000,000

New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal Street car line project ...................... 13,800,000

New Orleans, Louisiana, Desire corridor streetcar project ................ 3,100,000

Oceanside-Escondido, California, light rail extension project ............ 13,000,000

Phoenix, Arizona, Central Phoenix/East valley corridor project ........ 16,000,000

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, North Shore connector light rail transit

project .................................................................................................. 6,000,000

139

Amount

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, stage II light rail transit reconstruction

project .................................................................................................. 20,000,000

Portland, Oregon, Interstate MAX light rail transit extension

project .................................................................................................. 70,000,000

Puget Sound, Washington, RTA Sounder commuter rail project ...... 5,600,000

Raleigh, North Carolina, Triangle transit project .............................. 14,000,000

Sacramento, California, light rail transit extension project .............. 328,810

Salt Lake City, Utah, CBD to University light rail transit project 15,000,000

Salt Lake City, Utah, North-South light rail transit project ............. 718,006

San Diego, California, Mid Coast corridor project .............................. 2,000,000

San Diego Mission Valley East, California, light rail transit extension project .......................................................................................... 65,000,000

San Francisco, California, BART extension to the airport project .... 80,605,331

San Jose, California, Tasman West, light rail transit project ........... 113,336

San Juan, Puerto Rico, Tren Urbano project ...................................... 40,000,000

St. Louis, Missouri, Metrolink St. Clair extension project ................. 31,088,422

Stamford, Connecticut, urban transitway project ............................... 8,000,000

Washington County, Oregon, Wilsonville to Beaverton commuter

rail project ........................................................................................... 1,000,000

Section 5327 set-aside ........................................................................... 11,364,000

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.

Accordingly, on October 28, 1999, FTA notified Congress of its intent to revise the scope of this project 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 $329,590,000 has

been appropriated for this project in fiscal year 2001 and prior

years. This leaves $40,950,000 million remaining in the amended

FFGA for this project. The Committee has recommended

$25,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year

2002.

Baltimore, Maryland, central light rail transit double track

project.—The Maryland Mass Transit Administration plans to construct 9.4 miles of track to upgrade 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 beVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00139 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.002 pfrm04 PsN: A279
140

tween 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 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, of

which MTA is expected to seek $120,000,000 (78 percent) in section

5309 new starts funds. A total of $8,620,000 in section 5309 new

starts funds has been appropriated for this project through fiscal

year 2001. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends

$10,867,000. 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 Baltimore to revisit the amount of local funding they plan to contribute to this project, and find ways to increase the local share.

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 1, committing a total of

$330,730,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. Through fiscal

year 2001, a total of $319,530,000 has been provided for this

project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided

$11,203,169, 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 genVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.002 pfrm04 PsN: A279
141

erally 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 (7.3 miles) would operate on

separate tracks generally paralleling NS ROW. The proposed

project also includes construction of 19 stations, purchase of up to

twelve 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. An additional station will serve as an intermodal transfer point for feeder buses,

while a station at the Charlotte Transportation Center in uptown

Charlotte will provide connections to the downtown trolley and

local bus service. Total capital costs for the south corridor project

are estimated at $331,000,000 million. The federal share is estimated to be $166,800,000 (50 percent). Through fiscal year 2001,

Congress has appropriated $12,840,000 in section 5309 new starts

funds for this effort. For fiscal year 2002, the bill includes

$5,000,000 for this project.

Chicago, Illinois, Douglas branch reconstruction project.—The

Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) is proposing a complete 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 $19,780,000 has been appropriated through

fiscal year 2001. This leaves $300,320,000 to fulfill the FFGA. The

Committee has included $35,000,000 for this project in fiscal year

2002.

Chicago, Illinois, Metra 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. 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

142

design in October 2000. The total capital cost of this project is estimated at $235,532,216, of which Metra is expected to seek

$135,319,330 in new starts funding (60 percent). Through fiscal

year 2001, a total of $33,850,000 has been appropriated for this

project. The Committee recommends $23,000,000 in fiscal year

2002.

Chicago, Illinois, Metra Southwest corridor commuter rail.— Metra is planning an extension and various improvements to 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 $218,700,000, of which Metra is expected to seek $36,970,000 (17

percent) in section 5309 new starts funding. To date, Congress has

appropriated $17,860,000 to the project. The Committee has provided $19,118,735 in fiscal year 2002 for final design and construction.

Chicago, Illinois, Metra 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 36-mile

Union Pacific west line, which currently provides service between

Geneva and downtown Chicago. This project would extend the line

eight miles west to Elburn, with two new stations serving Elburn

and La Fox. The extension itself will use existing railroad track

and right-of-way 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 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 $134,603,334.

Of this total, Metra is expected to seek $80,728,000 in federal new

starts funding (60 percent). Through fiscal year 2001, a total of

$16,450,000 has been appropriated. A total of $20,000,000 has been

recommended for fiscal year 2002.

Chicago, Illinois, Ravenswood reconstruction project.—The Chicago Transit Authority is proposing to lengthen existing platforms

and expand 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 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.002 pfrm04 PsN: A279
143

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 a historical preservation issue associated with

one of the stations that is scheduled for rehabilitation. The environmental review process is scheduled for completion in 2001. Total

capital costs are currently estimated at $327,000,000. To date, Congress has appropriated $4,920,000 in section 5309 new starts funds

for the project. The Committee recommends $2,000,000 in fiscal

year 2002. Due to the volume of projects seeking an FFGA and a

longstanding problem with a historic building, the Committee cannot fully support those projects that are seeking a high federal

share from the new starts account. The Committee strongly encourages CTA to revisit the amount of local funding they plan to contribute to this project, and find ways to increase the local share.

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 Streets, 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 electric trolley buses (ETB) with both left and righthand side doors for access

and egress of patrons on the corridor. The ETBs 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)

144

adopted a resolution supporting the ECTP. In mid-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 summer 2001. 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 2001, Congress has

appropriated $13,440,000 in section 5309 new starts 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 2002, the Committee has provided

$5,000,000 for preliminary engineering, 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

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 2001, Congress has appropriated $162,320,000 in section 5309 new start

funds to this project. For fiscal year 2002, 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, 14-

station light rail line extending from the existing LRT station at

I–25 and Broadway in Denver along I–25 to Lincoln Avenue and

I–25 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

145

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

$6,410,000 has been appropriated to this project through fiscal year

2001. The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for this project in

fiscal year 2002.

Denver, Colorado, Southwest corridor light rail transit project.— The Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) light rail extension opened for revenue service in July 2000. The 8.7-mile, five

station line between Denver and Littleton extends from the I–25/

Broadway interchange in Denver parallel to Santa Fe Drive to

Mineral Avenue in Littleton. The LRT line operates over an exclusive, grade-separated right-of-way and connects with the existing

5.3-mile central corridor light rail line, which was constructed entirely with local funds and opened in October 1994. Ridership in

the opening year has exceed not only the original opening year

forecast of 8,400 daily passengers, but also the projections of 22,000

daily riders by 2015. The line currently serves 30,000 passengers

per day. The capital cost of the project was $176,320,000 (escalated

dollars), of which an FFGA was issued for $120,000,000 in new

starts funding. Through fiscal year 2001, a total of $119,807,510

has been appropriated to this project. This leaves $192,492 required to complete the federal funding commitment, which is the

amount the Committee has provided in fiscal year 2002.

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

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 2003 at an

estimated cost of $287,300,000 (escalated). The fully built rail

project is scheduled for operation in 2010 at an estimated cost of

$2,200,000,000 (escalated). Average weekday boardings for the BRT

are estimated to be 23,000 in 2020 with 13,600 daily new riders.

The report of 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 sysVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.002 pfrm04 PsN: A279
146

tem 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.

Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $90,930,000

for this project in section 5309 new starts funds. For fiscal year

2002, the bill provides $25,000,000 for preliminary engineering,

final design and construction activities. Due to the volume of

projects seeking an FFGA, the Committee cannot fully support

those projects that are seeking a high federal share (76 percent for

this project) from the new starts account. The Committee strongly

encourages Dulles to revisit the amount of local funding they plan

to contribute to this project, and find ways to increase the local

share.

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 on March 21, 2005. The first four segments, 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 $25,670,000 has been appropriated to this project through fiscal year 2001. The Committee

recommends $30,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.

Houston regional bus plan.—The bill includes a provision (Sec.

329) that prohibits the expenditure of funds provided in this Act

for the preliminary engineering, design or construction of a light

rail system in Houston, Texas. This is the same language as carried in the fiscal year 2001 Appropriations bill. The Committee reminds sponsors of light rail in Houston that elements of the approved Houston regional bus plan, which are explicit components

of the existing full funding grant agreement, cannot be replaced

with light rail elements. This policy is consistent with last year’s

147

report and current policy, which dictates that such scope changes

must be approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

Johnson County, Kansas-Kansas City, Missouri, I–35 commuter

rail project.—Johnson County, Kansas, is proposing to implement

a 5 station, 23-mile commuter rail line extending from downtown

Kansas City, Missouri, southwest to Olathe, Kansas, in Johnson

County. The proposed commuter rail project would parallel Interstate 35, the major highway connecting Kansas City with Olathe,

and would utilize existing Burlington Northern and Santa Fe

(BNSF) railroad track (except for the line’s northern-most mile segment, which would require either new track or existing Kansas

City Terminal Railway trackage). Park and ride facilities are being

planned for each proposed station. The commuter rail line will terminate in Kansas City at its historic Union Station. Ridership estimates for the I–35 commuter rail project range from 1,400 to 3,800

trips per day by 2001; these estimates will be refined during subsequent phases of project development. The project is estimated to

cost $30,900,000 in 1997 dollars, with a proposed section 5309 new

starts share of $24,750,000 (80 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. Johnson County initiated a major investment study

(MIS) on the I–35 corridor in early 1996. The MIS resulted in the

selection of commuter rail as the locally preferred alternative (LPA)

in August 1998. The LPA was adopted in the financially constrained regional plan in February 1999. FTA approved Johnson

County’s request to enter into preliminary engineering (PE) on the

project in July 1999. An environmental assessment for the project

will be undertaken as part of the PE effort. Through fiscal year

2001, Congress has appropriated $2,950,000 for the project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided $3,000,000 for final design and construction activities. 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 Johnson County to revisit the

amount of local funding they plan to contribute to this project, and

find ways to increase the local share.

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

148

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 September 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 $13,080,000 to

this project. For fiscal year 2002, 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

downtown Little Rock to the communities of North Little Rock and

Pulaski County. CATA proposes that service be provided by seven

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

$13,200,000 in escalated dollars, with a proposed section 5309 new

starts share of $8,600,000 (65 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 2001, Congress has

appropriated $5,940,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to this

project. For fiscal year 2002, $1,800,000 is provided for final design

and construction. Due to the volume of projects seeking an FFGA,

the Committee cannot fully support those projects that are seeking

149

a high federal share from the new starts account. The Committee

strongly encourages Little Rock to revisit the amount of local funding they plan to contribute to this project, and find ways to increase the local share.

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 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 $4,340,000,000 (escalated dollars), including $3,560,000,000 for project management,

design, construction and right-of-way, and $790,000,000 for rolling

stock (over 225 new vehicles). MTA is expected to seek

$2,172,000,000 in section 5309 new starts funding for this project

(50 percent). Overall, more than 351,000 average weekday

boardings to both Penn Station and GCT would benefit directly

from the LIRR ESA project by the year 2020. These include approximately 162,000 daily boardings serving GCT, 161,000 daily

boardings serving Penn Station and 5,500 daily boardings at the

proposed Sunnyside 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 is anticipated in mid-2001. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $53,630,000 in Section 5309 New Start funds for this

project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends

$10,000,000 for preliminary engineering, final design and construction.

150

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 Beverly and Atlantic boulevards, where a 500 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.

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,

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 total capital cost of this project is estimated to

151

be $759,500,000, of which MTA will seek $402,300,000 (53 percent)

in section 5309 new starts funding. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $76,480,000 for the Eastside and Mid-City

projects. In fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated $990,000 for

the Eastside project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $5,500,000.

Los Angeles, North Hollywood, California, extension project.— Continuing the discussion noted above under the Eastside corridors, on June 9, 1997, FTA and LACMTA negotiated a revised

FFGA covering the North Hollywood segment (phase 1–A) of MOS– 3 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 2001, a total of $631,350,000 has been appropriated for the North Hollywood segment of MOS–3. The Committee recommends $49,686,469 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

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 in fiscal year 2003. 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 $41,000,000 (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 2001, Congress has appropriated

$2,950,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for this effort. For fiscal year 2002, the bill includes $3,000,000 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 Springs intermodal transit center. The proposed Mid-Day

152

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 will no longer be available following 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 $21,000,000. The PennCamden 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. The proposal Silver Spring intermodal transit

center, 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 Midday storage facility is in final design, a finding of no significant impact was issued in November 1999 for the MARC Penn-Camden

connection, and an environmental assessment for the MARC Silver

Spring intermodal center has been completed. The total cost of the

project is estimated at $85,100,000, with $40,900,000 (48 percent)

to be derived from section 5309 new starts funds. Through fiscal

year 2001, $14,360,000 has been appropriated for these improvements. The Committee recommends $12,000,000 for fiscal year

2002.

Memphis, Tennessee, Medical Center rail extension project.—The

Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA), in cooperation with the

City of Memphis, is proposing to build 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 proposed project would operate on the street 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

153

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 2001, a total of $15,830,000 has been appropriated. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends

$19,170,000.

Miami, Florida, South Miami-Dade busway extension.—The

Miami-Dade Transit Authority (MDTA) is planning an 11.5-mile,

12-station busway extension along U.S. Route 1, between Cutler

Ridge mall near SW 200 Street and Florida City. The project is an

extension of the existing 8.3-mile South Busway, which opened in

February 1997 and serves Miami and the rapidly growing area to

the south. The extension is expected to serve an average of 8,800

weekday boardings and 3,000 daily new riders and will improve

travel time and transit access in the corridor along Route 1 in

south Florida, which now has only limited service. In August 1999,

the South Miami-Dade busway extension was selected as one of

FTA’s ten bus rapid transit (BRT) demonstration projects. FTA approved entry into final design in October 2000, and construction is

expected to begin on the first five-mile segment in January 2002.

The total capital cost of the extension is estimated at $88,800,000,

of which MDTA is seeking $23,400,00 in section 5309 new starts

funding (26 percent). Because this project has a proposed new

starts level below $25,000,000, the project is exempt from project

evaluation and rating processes. A total of $2,700,000 has been provided from FHWA’s national highway system program. In fiscal year 2001, $16,900,000 that was previously appropriated for the

North corridor and East-West corridor was reprogrammed to this

project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends

$5,000,000, which will complete the federal commitment to this

project.

Minneapolis-Rice, Minnesota, Northstar corridor commuter

rail.—The Northstar Corridor Development Authority (NCDA) and

the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) are proposing to design and construct an 80-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 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, NCDA 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 NCDA and MnDOT’s request to intitate

preliminary engineering in June 2000 on the commuter rail and

light rail extension. A final EIS is scheduled for completion in the

summer of 2001. Total capital costs for the project are

$244,800,000, of which, $21,800,000 is for the Hiawatha light rail

extension and $223,000,000 for the Northstar commuter rail segVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.002 pfrm04 PsN: A279
154

ment. The anticipated federal share will be $112,000,000 (50 percent). Through fiscal year 2001, a total of $3,810,000 has been appropriated to this project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $10,000,000.

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

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

24,600 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,

$118,850,000 has been appropriated through fiscal year 2001. For

fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $50,000,000.

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

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),

155

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

to advance into preliminary engineering (during which time environmental assessment will be undertaken) on November 30, 1999.

The RTA completed an environmental assessment and received a

finding of no significant impact for the project in May 2000. The

MTA and RTA estimate 1,400 average weekday boardings on the

proposed project in 2006, including 700 daily new riders. 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 2001, Congress has appropriated $7,900,000 for the project.

For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $4,000,000 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 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 proposing 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 impact 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

2001, Congress has appropriated $39,600,000 in section 5309 new

starts funds for the Newark rail link MOS–1 project, including

156

funds from the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $20,000,000.

New Britain-Hartford, Connecticut, busway project.—The Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) is proposing the

New Britain-Hartford busway, a 9.6-mile, 12-station busway to operate on existing and abandoned right-of-way between downtown

New Britain and Union Station in Hartford. The proposed New

Britain-Hartford busway is intended to relieve congestion in the I– 84 corridor and improve access to suburban employment and educational opportunities for inner city residents. In 1996, ConnDOT

initiated a major investment study for the Hartford west corridor;

the study was completed in July 1999. In March of 1999, the locally

preferred alternative was selected by the Capitol Regional Council

of Governments and included in the long-range plan. FTA approved

the busway project’s entrance into preliminary engineering in January 2000. The capital cost estimate for the proposed project is

$82,000,000 in escalated dollars, of which $51,600,000 is the estimated federal share (63 percent). Through fiscal year 2001,

$1,490,000 has been appropriated to this project. For fiscal year

2002, the Committee recommends $4,000,000 in section 5309 new

starts funds. 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 New Britain-Hartford to revisit the amount of

local funding they plan to contribute to this project, and find ways

to increase the local share.

New Jersey Hudson Bergen light rail transit project.—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 Pavonia-Newport Station in November

2000.

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 HoVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.002 pfrm04 PsN: A279
157

boken, 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 2001, Congress has appropriated $445,300,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to the Hudson-Bergen MOS–1. For fiscal year 2001, the bill provides $141,000,000. This funding level is less than the $151,327,655 requested in the budget request because the major contractor for this

project has entered into bankruptcy and the Committee has concerns that this project will not be able to complete work in time for

full service to begin from the Hoboken terminal in the spring of

2002.

New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal carline project.—The New Orleans Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is developing a 5.5-mile

streetcar project in the downtown area, 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 corridor

is located in an existing, built-up area that was originally developed in the streetcar era. Much of the corridor lies within the central business district and the historic district. 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 will be awarded in early to mid-2001. Sufficient

local funds are now committed to the project due to an extension

of the RTA sales tax. RTA expects to open this line in April 2004.

The total capital cost of this project is estimated at $156,600,000,

of which RTA is expected to seek $125,300,000 in section 5309 new

starts funding (80 percent). To date, Congress has appropriated

$55,180,000 for this project). For fiscal year 2002, the Committee

recommends $13,800,000. 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 New Orleans to revisit the amount

of local funding they plan to contribute to the Canal Street project,

and find ways to increase the local share.

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.

158

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 $65,500,000 (70 percent). To date, $5,960,000 has

been appropriated to the project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $3,100,000. 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 New Orleans to revisit the

amount of local funding they plan to contribute to the Desire corridor project, and find ways to increase the local share.

Oceanside-Escondido, California, light rail extension project.—

The North County Transit District (NCTD) is planning the conversion of 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 situated along the State Route 78 corridor,

which connects Interstate Highways 5 and 15, the principal eastwest corridor in northern San Diego County. The proposed DMU

system would serve fifteen stations; four of these stations would be

located at existing transit centers. Passenger rail would have exclusive use during pre-defined operational schedules. 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 $152,500,000

(46 percent) in FTA new starts funds. Through fiscal year 2001,

Congress has appropriated $17,840,000 to this project. For fiscal

159

year 2002, the Committee recommends $13,000,000 for final design

and construction.

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 an 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. Since the original approval, the size and scope of the proposed MOS and issues

related to the regional travel demand model have been identified

that remain to be resolved. As a result, the anticipated completion

of PE/EIS cannot be determined. The proposed 20.3-mile LRT system is estimated to cost approximately $1,076,000,000 (escalated),

of which the RPTA intends to seek $533,400,000 in new starts

funding (50 percent). Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $23,740,000 for the project. For fiscal year 2002, the

Committee recommends $16,000,000 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

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. Project capital costs are

estimated at $389,900,000 (escalated); revenue service start-up is

planned in 2004. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $15,750,000 in section 5309 new starts funds (50 percent)

for this effort. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided

$6,000,000 for preliminary engineering, final design and construction.

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

160

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

2400 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 2001, a total of $23,710,000 has been appropriated. The bill includes $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.

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.

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 30,

2002, 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. The fiscal

year 2001 appropriation provided $7,430,000 for the Interstate

MAX extension. The Committee recommends $70,000,000 in fiscal

year 2002.

Puget Sound, Washington, RTA Sounder commuter rail project.—

The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) 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. The Lakewood to Tacoma commuter rail service is scheduled to begin operations in 2001. The final EIS was published in

May 2000 and a record of decision was signed in June 2000. Sound

161

Transit will be seeking final design authorization for this project in

2001. 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. To date, $59,930,000 has been appropriated to the 82–mile Sounder commuter rail system, but none

specifically to this segment. For fiscal year 2002, the bill includes

$5,600,000 for final design and construction activities.

Raleigh, North Carolina, Triangle transit project, phase I.—The

phase I regional rail project is the first proposed 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 anticipated

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 17,600 average weekday

boardings by the year 2020. The most recent capital cost estimate

for Phase I is $754,700,000 (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 the 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. 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). 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. The draft

EIS was signed in April 2001, and a record of decision on the final

EIS is expected in December 2001. TTA is expected to request an

FFGA for $377,300,000, or 50 percent, of the costs of this project.

Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $41,600,000

in Section 5309 New Starts funds for this project. For fiscal year

2002, the Committee recommends $14,000,000 for preliminary engineering, final design and construction.

162

Sacramento, California, light rail transit extension project.—The

Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) is developing an 11.3-

mile light rail project on the Union Pacific right-of-way in the

South Sacramento corridor. RT has elected to synchronize the

project to available state and local capital funds as well as to corresponding available operating funds. Phase 1 is a 6.3-mile minimum operable segment (MOS) of the full project. The MOS would

provide service between downtown Sacramento and Meadowview

Road and is expected to capture 25,000 daily trips by the year

2015. The estimated capital cost of the MOS is $222,000,000 (escalated dollars) A major investment study/alternatives analysis/draft

EIS for the project was completed in September 1994. The preferred alternative was selected in March 1995. The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) was completed in February 1997.

In March 1997, FTA issued a record of decision for the south corridor MOS, and in June 1997, FTA and RT entered into an FFGA

committing $111,200,000 in Section 5309 new starts funds for final

design and construction. This excludes $1,980,000 in prior year

funds before the FFGA was issued. The final design phase of the

project began in July 1997. Construction began November, 1999

and revenue service is projected to begin in September 2003. RT

expects to begin preliminary engineering for the next segment

(phase 2) as soon as additional operating funds can be identified

and secured. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated

$113,180,000 in Section 5309 new start funds for the project. For

fiscal year 2002, the bill includes $328,810 to fulfill the terms of

the FFGA.

Salt Lake City, Utah, CBD to University LRT.—The Utah Transit

Authority (UTA) is implementing 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 would

connect with the existing North/South line at Main Street and

travel east along 400 South and 500 South to the stadium. Light

rail vehicles would 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. An

additional $1,980,000 was appropriated in 2001. The bill provides

$15,000,000 for this project in fiscal year 2002.

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 pasVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.002 pfrm04 PsN: A279
163

sengers in 2010, current ridership has already exceeded 26,000

weekday passengers. Total cost for this project was $312,490,000,

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 2002, the bill includes $718,006 to fulfill the terms of the FFGA for this project.

San Diego, California, Mid-Coast corridor project.—The Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) is proposing to implement a 10.7-mile, 9-station LRT line and improve commuter rail

stations in the San Diego Mid Coast Corridor. Proposed investments in the corridor are intended to alleviate congestion on Interstate 5 by extending light rail service north from downtown San

Diego to the vicinity of the University of California at San Diego

and the growing University City and Carmel Valley areas of the region, and to enhance connectivity between the region’s LRT and

Coaster commuter rail systems. The MTDB has proposed a phase

I of the project, a 3.4-mile, 3 station Balboa extension from the Old

Town transit center to Balboa Avenue. FTA approved the MTDB’s

request to enter preliminary engineering for the initial phase of the

LRT extension in September 1996. Work is continuing on a final

EIS for the Balboa extension. A record of decision is expected in

spring 2001. The estimated cost of phase I is $116,700,000 (escalated), with a section 5309 new starts share of $42,200,000 (36 percent). Through fiscal year 2001, $11,330,000 has been appropriated.

The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.

San Diego, California, Mission Valley East light rail transit

project.—The Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) is

planning to build 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

164

$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 2001, Congress

has appropriated $53,320,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to

this project. The Committee recommends $65,000,000 for fiscal

year 2002.

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 68,600

trips per day by 2010, including approximately 17,800 daily trips

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 2001,

$296,440,000 has been appropriated to the BART–SFO Extension.

For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $80,605,331.

San Jose, California, Tasman West light rail transit project.—

The Santa Clara County Transit District (SCCTD) is implementing

a 12.4-mile light rail system from northeast San Jose to downtown

Mountain View, connecting with both the Guadalupe LRT in northern Santa Clara County and the Caltrain commuter rail system.

The project is proceeding in two phases. The phase I west extension consists of 7.6 miles of surface LRT from the northern terminus of the Guadalupe LRT in the city of Santa Clara, west

through Sunnyvale, to the CalTrain commuter rail station in downtown Mountain View. The project includes 11 stations and is double tracked except for some single tracking in Mountain View. The

future phase 2 east extension will complete the remaining 4.8

miles. The phase I west extension has a total cost of $325,000,000

(escalated dollars). Ridership on the west extension is projected to

reach 7,500 per day by 2005. Preliminary engineering on the

Tasman corridor was completed in August 1992. In July 1996, FTA

and SCCTD entered into an FFGA with a commitment of

$182,750,000 in section 5309 new start funds for the west extension. Construction of the Tasman west LRT extension has been

completed. Originally anticipated to be open for revenue operations

165

by December 2000, the extension opened on December 17, 1999, a

year ahead of schedule. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $182,640,000 of section 5309 new start funds to the

project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $113,336

to fulfill the federal commitment to this project.

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

166

phase 1 for an initial period of five years. 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 has withheld

$105,700,000 in appropriations from the project and the project is

now expected to enter revenue service in 2003, a slip from May

2002. The Committee expects the Inspector General to continue

monitoring the status of this project, in light of these unresolved

problems, as well as possible debt repayment concerns, and report

back to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on

these issues no later than October 1, 2001. Through fiscal year

2001, Congress has appropriated $158,930,000 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 2002, the Committee recommends $40,000,000.

Southern Nevada regional transportation commission.—The Committee directs that the unexpended balance of funds appropriated

in prior years for the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC)

of southern Nevada for preliminary engineering activities on the

resort corridor fixed guideway project may be used by RTC for final

design activities on that project, subject to any necessary FTA approvals to enter the final design phase of project development.

St. Louis, Missouri, MetroLink St. Clair extension project.—The

Bi-State Development Agency (Bi-State) is planning 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 (BAC), Scott Air Force Base and Mid America Airport.

A 17.4-mile ‘‘minimum operable segment’’ (MOS) terminates at

BAC. The 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. The MOS is estimated to cost

$339,200,000 (escalated dollars), and scheduled to open for service

in 2001. The East-West Gateway Coordinating Council (the MPO)

completed a major investment study and draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the project in 1995. A preliminary engineering/final environmental impact statement for the full 26-mile

project was completed in August 1996 and a record of decision was

issued in September 1996. Section 5309 funds were made available

in October 1996 to provide design and construction as far as BAC

and an FFGA was awarded for that segment on October 17, 1996.

The FFGA provides a commitment of $243,930,000 in section 5309

new start funds contributing to the total estimated cost of

$339,200,000 (escalated dollars). The St. Clair County Transit District is providing $95,300,000 in local funds from a 3⁄4 cent county

sales tax. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated

$221,320,000 in section 5309 new start funds for the FFGA covered

minimum operable segment portion of the project. An additional

$8,500,000 in section 5309 new start funds were previously appropriated but not included in the FFGA scope. For fiscal year 2002,

167

the bill provides $31,088,422 to complete the federal commitment

to this project.

Stamford, Connecticut, urban transit project—The Stamford corridor project involves the construction of a one-mile urban

transitway to improve access to the Stamford intermodal transportation center, which is currently being rehabilitated to accommodate high-speed rail service and to provide additional commuter

parking. A brownfield area is adjacent to the center. The Stamford

urban transitway project will include exclusive lanes for buses and

other high occupancy vehicles. The Connecticut Department of

Transportation, the Southwestern Regional Planning Agency, the

metropolitan planning organization, and the city of Stamford have

coordinated the development of the proposed project. FTA approved

the City of Stamford’s request to initiate preliminary engineering

on the urban transitway in February 2000. The city plans to complete the environmental review in 2001. The estimated cost of the

project is $44,000,000, of which $24,000,000 is for the one-mile access road (including bus and high occupancy vehicle lanes) and

$18,000,000 is for the parking facility. Of this total, $18,000,000 is

proposed for the federal share (41 percent). Because the proposed

new start 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 2001, Congress has appropriated $9,890,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for this effort.

The bill includes $8,000,000 for final design and construction for

this project in fiscal year 2002.

Washington County, Oregon, Wilsonville to Beaverton commuter

rail project.—Washington County, Oregon, in conjunction with the

Oregon Department of Transportation, Tri-County Metropolitan

District of Oregon, Portland Metro, Clackamas County, and the cities of Wilsonville, Tualatin, Tigard, and Beaverton, are proposing

to design and construct a 15-mile commuter rail line in the

Wilsonville-Beaverton Corridor. The proposed project would operate

along portions of existing Union Pacific railroad tracks and connect

to Metro’s existing Westside light rail system at the Beaverton

Transit Center (BTC). As part of the proposed project, approximately 2,000 feet of new railroad trackage will be constructed at

the northern terminus of the alignment near BTC. The proposed

project also includes the purchase of eight passenger rail cars, the

construction of vehicle maintenance and dispatch facilities, and

multiple capital improvements. The proposed commuter rail project

is estimated to have 4,650 weekday boardings. In June 2000, the

Washington County Board of Commissions unanimously adopted

commuter rail as the locally preferred alternative (LPA) for the corridor. The affected local governments also passed resolutions adopting the LPA. FTA approved Washington county’s request to enter

preliminary engineering on the project in July 2000 and authorized

a draft environmental assessment. In August 2000, the Metro

Council adopted the financially constrained regional transportation

plan, which includes the Wilsonville-Beaverton commuter rail

project. Total capital costs for the commuter rail alternative are

currently estimated at $82,800,000, with a proposed federal share

of $24,900,000 (30 percent). Since the proposed new starts share is

less than $25,000,000, the project is exempt from evaluation under

the new starts criteria. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has apVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00167 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.002 pfrm04 PsN: A279
168

propriated $1,470,000 in new starts fund for this effort. For fiscal

year 2002, the bill includes an appropriation of $1,000,000.

Project and financial management oversight.—Both the Inspector

General and the General Accounting Office have repeatedly reported on problem transit projects in San Francisco, Los Angeles,

Boston, Puerto Rico, and Seattle. They found that transit projects

that have experienced significant cost overruns, lengthy delays,

substantial scope changes or other noteworthy problems have typically entered into a full funding grant too early in the process, before adequate design parameters had been established. One way to

identify these problems before a full funding grant agreement is

entered into is through increased project and financial oversight.

Over the past few years, FTA have increased their oversight activities, largely through a provision in TEA–21 that allows the Administration to draw down a percent of formula and capital investment

grant funding to pay for these activities. For fiscal year 2002, FTA

has estimated that a shortfall of about $5,000,000 will occur. To

rectify this situation, the budget proposed to increase the capital

investment program set aside from 3⁄4 percent to 1 percent to cover

the growth of project and financial management oversight necessary on the growing number of projects in the new starts pipeline. The Committee has approved this request (sec. 335). If this increase were not approved, FTA would need to limit the number of

projects to which oversight contractors are assigned or scale back

the level of oversight currently being provided by doing a riskbased ranking of projects. Either of these options would expose

FTA, the Federal government, and Congress to criticism if one of

the projects not fully monitored develops serious problems.

Project and financial management oversight is particularly important this year, following the Seattle Sound Transit debacle. In

January 2001, FTA entered into a $500,000,000 full funding grant

agreement with Seattle Sound Transit for the first phase of a 23.5-

mile light rail project. The first phase, or MOS–1, was to build a

7.4-mile long double-track light rail system located entirely within

the City of Seattle. From the time that FTA sent this project forward for Congressional review until the time FTA signed the FFGA

(a four-month period), the project costs increased by $1 billion, the

schedule slipped by three years, and certain aspects of the community began expressing serious reservations about this project. Even

after this project received an FFGA, problems continued to plague

it. The Inspector General reported in April 2001 that:

• ‘‘FTA did not perform satisfactory due diligence in the grant

application process. Both FTA and Sound Transit had information

that the $1.674 billion cost estimate and revenue operation date of

June 2007 contained in the grant agreement submitted to the Congress in September 2000, were materially understated and consideration of the grant agreement should have been suspended or

withdrawn.’’

• FTA’s review of the project, including its examination of the

new $2.6 billion estimate (in December 2000) was not thorough

enough to serve as a predicate for approval of the project on January 19, 2001. Several items, such as revised agreements for station

locations and the use of a needed bus tunnel, incomplete design refinements and engineering options, and uncertain contracting

169

methods all should have been resolved prior to the signing of the

FFGA.’’ As a result of these findings, the Administration did not recommend any funding for this project in fiscal year 2002 and is

holding the fiscal year 2001 funding in abeyance. Independent, and

increased, project and financial oversight is critical to ensure that

the Federal government does not continue to enter into FFGAs prematurely. Earlier and better oversight on this project may have

flagged these problems prior to FTA agreeing to a $500,000,000

FFGA.

JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE GRANTS

Appropriation

(General fund)

Limitation on

obligations

(Trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 20011 ............................ $20,000,000 ($80,000,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ........................... 25,000,000 (100,000,000)

Recommended in the bill ........................................ 25,000,000 (100,000,000)

Bill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 ...................... +5,000,000 (+20,000,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 .................... .......................... () 1Does not reflect rescission of $220,000 pursuant to section 1403 of P.L. 106–554.

Section 3037 of TEA–21 established the job access and reverse

commute (JARC) grants program. For fiscal year 2002, the program is funded at a total level of $125,000,000, with no more than

$25,000,000 derived from the general fund and $100,000,000 derived from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund.

These funds are guaranteed under the transit funding category.

The program is to make competitive grants to qualifying metropolitan planning organizations, local governmental authorities,

agencies, and non-profit organizations in urbanized areas with populations greater than 200,000. Grants may not be used for planning or coordination activities. No more than $10,000,000 may be

provided for reverse commute grants.

Formula proposal for job access and reverse commute grants.— The Committee has denied bill language that would allocate funding to states for job access and reverse commute grant programs

by a formula. The administration requested a formula allocation so

that states and localities will have a greater level of predictability

and stability in funding. The Committee sees no need to change

this grant program into a formula-based program. Instead, the

Committee has tried to continue funding meritorious projects that

have received appropriations in the past to assure that those areas

have ongoing service, as well as to fund new projects worthy of support.

The Committee recommends the following allocations of job access and reverse commute grant program funds in fiscal year 2002:

Project name Amount

Abilene, Texas Citilink Program .......................................................... $150,000

AC Transit, California ........................................................................... 2,000,000

Austin, Texas ......................................................................................... 500,000

Avondale, Arizona .................................................................................. 1,200,000

Broome County, New York Transit ...................................................... 500,000

Burlington Community Land Trust/Good News Garage .................... 850,000

Central Ohio Transit Authority ............................................................ 1,000,000

Charlotte Area Transit, North Carolina .............................................. 500,000

Chatham, Georgia .................................................................................. 1,000,000

Chattanooga, Tennessee ........................................................................ 500,000

170

Project name Amount

City of Charlottesville, Virginia ........................................................... 375,000

City of Santa Fe, New Mexico .............................................................. 630,000

Columbia County, New York ................................................................ 100,000

Community Transportation Association of America ........................... 625,000

Corpus Christi, Texas ............................................................................ 550,000

Del Norte County, California ................................................................ 700,000

Delaware Department of Transportation ............................................. 750,000

Flint, Michigan Mass Transportation Authority ................................. 1,000,000

Galveston, Texas .................................................................................... 480,000

Genesee County, Michigan .................................................................... 1,000,000

Genesee Regional Transportation Authority, New York .................... 400,000

Georgetown Metro Connection, Washington, DC ................................ 1,000,000

Hillsbourgh Area Regional Transit, Tampa, Florida .......................... 900,000

IndyFlex Service, Indiana ..................................................................... 1,000,000

Jacksonville Transportation Authority’s Choice Ride, Florida .......... 1,000,000

Jefferson County, Alabama ................................................................... 2,000,000

Los Angeles, California ......................................................................... 2,000,000

Metropolitan Kansas City, Missouri .................................................... 1,000,000

Metropolitan Transportation Commission, LIFT program,

California ............................................................................................ 3,000,000

New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department ........... 2,000,000

New York Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority .................... 1,000,000

Northern Tier Dial-A-Ride, Massachusetts ......................................... 400,000

Ohio Ways to Work ................................................................................ 1,500,000

Oklahoma Transit Association ............................................................. 5,000,000

Pace, Illinois suburban buses ............................................................... 561,000

Palm Beach County, Florida ................................................................. 500,000

Pennsylvania Ways to Work program .................................................. 1,500,000

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania reverse commute buses .............................. 2,000,000

Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania ............................ 2,000,000

Portland, Oregon .................................................................................... 1,800,000

Red Rose, Transit, Pennsylvania .......................................................... 200,000

Sacramento, California .......................................................................... 2,000,000

Salem Area Transit, Oregon ................................................................. 700,000

Santa Clara County, California ............................................................ 500,000

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ............................................................................. 6,000,000

Southeastern, Massachusetts Regional Transit Authority ................. 100,000

State of Arkansas .................................................................................. 500,000

State of Connecticut .............................................................................. 3,500,000

State of Iowa .......................................................................................... 1,695,000

State of Maryland .................................................................................. 4,000,000

State of Nevada ...................................................................................... 300,000

State of New Jersey ............................................................................... 3,000,000

State of Rhode Island ............................................................................ 1,000,000

State of Tennessee ................................................................................. 3,000,000

State of Wisconsin ................................................................................. 5,200,000

Sullivan County, New York .................................................................. 400,000

Tennessee small rural systems ............................................................. 1,000,000

Topeka, Kansas Metropolitan Transit Authority ................................ 600,000

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ............................. 2,500,000

Westchester County, New York ............................................................ 1,000,000

Wichita Transit, Kansas ....................................................................... 1,450,000

Winchester, Virginia .............................................................................. 1,000,000

Worcester, Massachusetts ..................................................................... 400,000

WorkFirst Transportation Initiative, State of Washington ................ 3,000,000

Workforce Investment Board of Southeast Missouri .......................... 800,000

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation’s operations program consists of lock and marine operations, maintenance, dredging, planning and development activities related to the

operation and maintenance of that part of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie within the territorial limits

of the United States.

171

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 last year. 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 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, but which have been historically set

aside for non-routine or emergency use-cash reserves derived primarily from prior-year revenues received in excess of costs; unused

borrowing authority; and miscellaneous income.

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 20011 ........................................................ $13,004,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2002 ..................................................... 13,345,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 13,426,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. +422,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2002 .............................................. +81,000 1Does not reflect reduction of $28,609 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 109–554.

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $13,426,000,

a slight increase above the amount requested. This increase

($81,000) will fund a 4.6 percent pay raise instead of the 3.6 percent pay raise in the budget request. Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and revenues from non-federal

sources finance the operations and maintenance of the Seaway for

which the corporation is responsible.

Employee retirements.—The Seaway faces a serious problem with

employees eligible for retirement over the next ten years. By 2010,

53 percent of all Seaway employees will be eligible for retirement,

with the operations offices facing the greatest loss. While the Committee commends the Seaway for taking steps to address the problem, such as conducting a workforce analysis project to evaluate

available resources, the Committee does not believe this will be

adequate. Therefore, the Seaway is directed to provide to the House

and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than April 1,

2002, a report detailing any plans to address recruiting and retention of employees, a process to retain the key skills of retiring employees, and the impact of technological advances on future workforce needs.

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. As the department’s only multimodal administration, RSPA

provides research, analytical and technical support for transporVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00171 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.003 pfrm04 PsN: A279
172

tation programs through headquarters offices and the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2002 PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $85,162,000 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 $4,545,000 from the fiscal

year 2001 enacted level. The following table summarizes fiscal year

2001 program levels, the fiscal year 2002 program requests, and

the Committee’s recommendations:

Program Fiscal year 2001

enacted2

Fiscal year 2002

estimate

Recommended

in the bill

Research and special programs ............................................... $36,373,000 $41,993,000 $36,487,000

Hazardous materials user fees ................................................. .............................. ¥12,000,000 ..............................

Pipeline safety .......................................................................... 144,044,000 53,758,000 48,475,000

Emergency preparedness grants .............................................. 200,000 200,000 200,000

Total ............................................................................. 80,617,000 83,951,000 85,162,000

1 Does not reflect $3,000,000 derived from the reserve fund because it is not directly appropriated.

2 Does not reflect reductions pursuant to Section 1403 of Public Law 106–534 in across the board reductions.

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ....................................................... $36,373,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... 41,993,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 36,487,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. +114,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ ¥5,506,000 1Does not reflect a reduction of $80,021 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

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 $36,487,000, essentially the same level as fiscal year

2001. Budget and staffing data for this appropriation are as follows:

Fiscal year 2001

enacted

Fiscal year 2002

estimate

Recommended

in the bill

Hazardous materials safety ...................................................... $18,750,000 $21,217,000 $21,348,000

(Positions) ........................................................................ (129) (135) (135)

Hazardous materials safety user fees ...................................... .............................. ¥12,000,000 ..............................

Research and technology .......................................................... 4,816,000 4,759,000 1,784,000

(Positions) ........................................................................ (9) (9) (9)

Emergency transportation ......................................................... 1,831,000 1,897,000 1,897,000

(Positions) ........................................................................ (9) (9) (9)

Program support ....................................................................... 10,976,000 14,059,000 11,458,000

(Positions) ........................................................................ (53) (67) (53)

Total, Research and Special Programs ....................... 36,373,000 41,993,000 36,487,000

173

Fiscal year 2001

enacted

Fiscal year 2002

estimate

Recommended

in the bill

(Positions) .................................................................... (200) (220) (206)

The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget

request:

Reduce funding for 14 new positions ................................................... ¥$690,000

Reduce funding for research and development planning ................... ¥1,675,000

Reduce funding for transportation infrastructure assurance ............ ¥1,000,000

Discontinue funding for human-centered research ............................. ¥300,000

Reduce funding for business modernization ........................................ ¥1,911,000

Reduce funding for unjustified amounts .............................................. ¥60,000

Increase funding consistent with a 4.6 percent pay raise .................. +130,000

New positions.—The budget included a request for six new personnel for the office of hazardous materials. Of these, two would

evaluate incidents in the field and four would be researchers/engineers. The Committee has provided funding associated with these

new positions.

The budget also requested 14 new positions in program support

for business modernization. These new personnel would work in

the areas of information resources, administrative support, and financial management. The Committee is concerned that RSPA has

not developed a strategic plan that assesses realistic needs or provides realistic cost estimates, plans, and goals associated with the

large increases requested. Therefore, the Committee has denied

funding for these positions. The Committee directs RSPA to develop a strategic plan for business modernization by October 1,

2002.

Research and development planning.—The Committee has reduced research and development planning by $1,675,000. The Committee is concerned with the recent increases in research accounts

and believes some of the programs to be duplicative. The Committee also questions RSPA’s tangible value to DOT research programs. The Committee encourages RSPA to streamline its research

programs, to efficiently use available resources on the most effective programs, and to eliminate duplicative programs within RSPA

and among other modal administrations in DOT.

Transportation infrastructure assurance program.—The Committee has deleted amounts for the transportation infrastructure

assurance program. This program was begun in fiscal year 2001 to

address vulnerabilities of key national transportation infrastructure. However, it is unclear what value RSPA provides in this effort. The Federal Aviation Administration has been actively developing ways to protect its infrastructure that could be vulnerable to

a variety of security threats. As the Committee noted in 2001, DOT

has stated, ‘‘few current surface transportation modes are critically

dependent on information and communications systems. . . . Increased dependence will not occur for at least 5 to 10 years’’. Because FAA is already handling its critical needs, and funding to

oversee other modes within the Department is not immediate,

funding for this program has been deleted.

Human centered research.—The Committee has deleted $300,000

for the human centered research effort begun by RSPA in 2001. Efforts within the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal Highway Administration,

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Federal Aviation

174

Administration, and universities have been on-going for several

years. Although the Committee agrees it is important to understand the role of fatigue in the transportation industry, the Committee is not convinced of the compelling need for RSPA to join

many other entities already working in this area.

Business modernization.—The Committee has deleted funding for

business modernization. As noted earlier, RSPA has not developed

a strategic plan for the efficient and effective use of the large funding increases it requests.

Unjustified amounts.—Since submission of the budget, RSPA has advised the Committee that $60,000 is not needed. The Committee

has deleted funding to reflect this.

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 $12,000,000 in user fees

in fiscal year 2002 and fully fund the office of hazardous materials

beginning in fiscal year 2003. These fees would be above those 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.

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

(Pipeline safety fund) (Oil spill liability

trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 2 ..................... $36,556,000 $7,488,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2002 ..................... 46,286,000 7,472,000

Recommended in the bill .................................... 41,003,000 7,472,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................. 4,447,000 ¥16,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2002 .............. ¥5,283,000 ............................ 1 Excludes reduction of $87,023 in pipeline safety and $16,474 in trust fund share of pipeline safety pursuant to public law 106–54, section 1403. 2Does not reflect $3,000,000 derived from the reserve fund, because it is not directly appropriated.

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 subVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00174 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.003 pfrm04 PsN: A279
175

stances from pipelines. The office develops and enforces federal

safety regulations and administers a grants-in-aid program to state

pipeline programs.

The bill includes $48,475,000 to continue pipeline safety operations, research and development, and state grants-in-aid in fiscal

year 2002. This is 3 percent above the level enacted for fiscal year

2001. The bill specifies that of the total appropriation, $7,472,000

shall be derived from the oil spill liability trust fund and

$41,003,000 shall be from the pipeline safety fund.

The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget

request:

Reduce funding for six new positions ............................................... ¥$405,300

Reduce funding for integrity management program ....................... ¥4,943,000

Increase funding consistent with a 4.6 percent pay raise ............... +65,000

New positions.—The budget requested 26 new positions to support a new community based program and to support the new integrity management program. The Committee has provided funding

for 20 new personnel. The Committee remains concerned that none

of the four new pipeline positions approved last year have been

filled and encourages RSPA to fill these vacancies as well as the

new positions expeditiously.

Interstate oversight grant program and damage prevention and

public education.—RSPA has included in its base $5,000,000 from

the damage prevention grants program, which expires at the end

of fiscal year 2001. RSPA has allocated this funding to a new grant

program and a new community outreach program. The Committee

has provided funding for these two programs.

Integrity management program.—RSPA requested $4,943,000 for

a new integrity management program to ensure that pipeline operators are complying with new integrity management requirements.

This request would fund the development of protocols for the integrity management review process, train inspectors, and develop information systems for integrity management compliance reviews.

Due to budget constraints, the Committee has denied funding for

this program. However, the Committee allows RSPA to use up to

$1,000,000 of the $3,413,000 (in non-grant funds) provided to the

damage prevention community assistance program for activities related to the integrity management program. The Committee believes that since both the damage prevention community assistance

program and the integrity management program of these initiatives are new or expanded, this funding level will be sufficient in

2002. The Committee directs RSPA to provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriation a concise report by Feb. 1, 2002

on how the $3,413,000 for damage prevention and community assistance, and the $2,000,000 for interstate oversight grants were

used and how these programs contributed to safety. The report

should include specific examples.

Pay raise.—The Committee has provided funding consistent with

a 4.6 percent pay raise.

176

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ....................................................... $200,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... 200,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 200,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. ............................

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ ............................ 1 Excludes reduction of $440 pursuant to public law 106–554, section 1403.

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 2001 1 ....................................................... $48,450,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... 50,614,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 50,614,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. +2,164,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ ............................ 1Does not reflect reduction of $106,000 pursuant to section 1403 of P.L. 106–554.

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. The Committee recommendation provides $50,614,000 for activities of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), an increase of

$2,164,000 (4.5 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 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 $5,524,000 from other agencies in this bill for

audits of the highway trust fund. The OIG’s total funding of $56,138,000 represents an increase of 6 percent above the fiscal

year 2001 level.

Unfair business practices.—The bill maintains language first enacted in fiscal year 2000 authorizing the OIG to investigate allegations of fraud and unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods

of competition by air carriers and ticket agents.

177

Amtrak oversight.—The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act

of 1997 required the Inspector General to annually review Amtrak’s financial health. These reports have been extremely helpful

in pointing out areas that Amtrak is making improvements as well

as problems with Amtrak’s financial stability. Fiscal year 2002 is

a crucial year for Amtrak. By December 2, 2002, Amtrak must be

free of federal operating subsidies. If this does not occur, Amtrak

must develop a plan to liquidate. The fiscal year 2001 annual report will be critical to help decision makers determine whether or

not Amtrak will be able to meet the self-sufficiency test. The Committee expects the Inspector General to issue this report in a timely fashion so that it may be adequately considered prior to the selfsufficiency deadline.

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 or modifications 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 2001 1 ....................................................... $17,954,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 2 ..................................................... 18,457,000

Recommended in the bill 3 ................................................................. 18,563,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. +609,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ +106,000 1Does not reflect a reduction of $37,519 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554. Of this total,

$900,000 is offset through the collection of user fees. 2 Assumes collection of $950,000 in user fees, to offset the appropriation as the fees are collected throughout the fiscal year. 3Of this total, $950,000 is offset through collection of user fees.

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 new 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 $18,563,000,

or $106,000 over the Board’s requested amount. The increase from

the request provides additional funding consistent with a 4.6 percent pay raise. Included in the recommended amount is an estimated $950,000 in fees, which will offset the appropriated funding.

178

At this funding level, the Board will be able to accommodate 143

full-time equivalent positions.

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 $950,000 in user fees is reasonable. Currently, the

Board is revising its merger guidelines and, as a result, will not

consider any new merger applications until the final rules are published on June 11, 2001.

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

Appropriation, fiscal year 20011 ........................................................ $4,795,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... 5,015,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 5,046,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. +251,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ +31,000 1 Excludes $11,000 in across-the-board reductions pursuant to P.L. 106–554.

The Committee recommends $5,046,000 for operations of the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, an increase of $251,000 over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level, and a

slight increase above the amount requested. The Committee has included additional funding for a 4.6 percent employee pay raise instead of the 3.6 percent pay raise in the budget.

The activities of the Board include: ensuring compliance with the

standards prescribed by the Architectural Barriers Act; ensuring

179

that public conveyances, including rolling stock, are readily accessible to and usable by physically handicapped persons; investigating and examining alternative approaches to the elimination of

architectural, transportation, communication and attitudinal barriers; determining what measures are being taken to eliminate

these barriers; developing minimum guidelines and requirements

for accessibility standards; and providing technical assistance to all

programs affected by title V of the Rehabilitation Act.

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1 ....................................................... $62,942,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ....................................................... 64,480,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 66,400,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 .................................................. +3,458,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2002 ................................................ +1,920,000 1 Excludes $139,000 in across the board reductions pursuant to P.L. 106–554.

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 $66,400,000 for salaries and

expenses, an increase of $3,458,000 (5.7 percent) above the fiscal

year 2001 enacted level and $1,910,000 above the budget estimate.

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 allocations or by more than five percent from

the funding allocations described in the budget justifications.

The recommendation includes the following adjustments to the

budget estimate:

Change to budget

Civilian pay raise parity ....................................................................... +$304,000

True overtime ......................................................................................... +699,000

Financial management/audit improvements ....................................... +917,000

Civilian pay raise parity.—Consistent with other sections of the

bill, the recommendation includes funds sufficient to finance a 4.6

percent general pay raise, which is the same level as proposed for

the military workforce.

True overtime.—The bill includes $699,000 for NTSB to pay

‘‘true’’ overtime to its employees. Without such funding, many

NTSB investigators are being paid less, on an hourly basis, for

working overtime than they are paid during normal business

hours. The bill helps to address that disparity.

Financial management and audit improvements.—The bill includes $917,000 for NTSB to continue the necessary improvements

in its financial management and internal audit systems. These

funds are necessary to address recommendations stemming from

fraudulent misuse of the now-defunct Rapid Draft system and inadequate system-level oversight of financial activities. The Committee

180

remains strongly supportive of these efforts, and encourages the

administration to include funds to restore the integrity of NTSB’s

financial management systems in future budget requests.

BILL LANGUAGE

Bill language is continued that permits the Board to reimburse

individuals up to the per diem rate for a GS–15 instead of the rate

for an executive level III position. This reimbursement language

has been carried for many years.

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

2001 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (section numbers are different):

Section 302 requires pay raises to be funded within appropriated

levels in this Act or previous appropriations Acts.

Section 308 limits consulting service expenditures of public

record in procurement contracts.

Section 316 prohibits funds to compensate in excess of 335 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 320 prohibits the use of funds for any type of training

which: (a) does not meet needs for knowledge, skills, and abilities

bearing directly on the performance of official duties; (b) could be

highly stressful or emotional to the students; (c) does not provide

prior notification of content and methods to be used during the

training; (d) contains any religious concepts or ideas; (e) attempts

to modify a person’s values or lifestyle; or (f) is for AIDS awareness

training, except for raising awareness of medical ramifications of

AIDS and workplace rights.

Section 321 prohibits the use of funds in this Act for activities

designed to influence Congress or a state legislature on legislation

or appropriations except through proper, official channels.

Section 322 requires compliance with the Buy American Act.

Section 325 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to allow

issuers of any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase preferred

stock sold to the Department of Transportation.

Section 327 prohibits funds in this Act for making grants 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 329 prohibits funds for planning, design, or construction

of a light rail system in Houston, Texas.

181

Section 330 prohibits funds in this Act for engineering work related to an additional runway at New Orleans International Airport.

Section 332 prohibits funds in this Act to be used to adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide the Federal Aviation Administration ‘‘without cost’’ buildings, maintenance, or space for FAA services. The prohibition does not apply to

negotiations between FAA and airport sponsors concerning ‘‘below

market’’ rates for such services or to grant assurances that require

airport sponsors to provide land without cost to the FAA for air

traffic control facilities.

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 105 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 310 provides for the distribution of the Federal-aid highways program under title 23, United States Code, and includes

$56,300,000 of the funds authorized under section 110 for the state

and Federal border infrastructure construction program. The Committee did not include the modifications to section 310 proposed in

the budget regarding transportation research programs, a pilot program to promote innovation transportation solutions for people

with disabilities, and a matching grant program to promote access

to alternative methods of transportation.

Section 319 provides that funds received from the sale of data

products of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics may be credited

to the Federal-aid highways account for reimbursing the Bureau

for such expenses and that such funds shall be subject to the obligation limitation for federal-aid highways and highway safety construction.

Section 324 credits to appropriations of the Department of Transportation rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees and

other funds received by the department from travel management

centers, charge card programs, the subleasing of building space,

and miscellaneous sources. Such funds received shall be available

until December 31, 2002.

Section 326 provides the budget request of $785,000 for the Amtrak Reform Council, and includes provisions regarding section 203

of Public Law 105–134 on the Amtrak Reform Council’s recommendations on Amtrak routes identified for closure or realignment.

Also, the Committee included the provision that allows

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

Salaries and expenses under title I instead of $5,000,000 of user

fees proposed in the budget under title III.

The Committee included the following new provisions:

Section 307 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to make

expenditures and investments related to aviation insurance activities under chapter 443 of title 49, United States Code. This provision was included under Title I, Federal Aviation Administration,

in previous Appropriations Acts.

182

Section 323 reserves up to $18,000,000 of funds provided for the

motor carrier safety grants program for Arizona, California, New

Mexico, and Texas to hire state border inspectors.

Section 328 repeals section 232 of Appendix E of Public Law

106–113 that pertains to funding for the James A. Farley Post Office Building in New York City.

Section 337 amends item number 1348 in section 1602 of Public

Law 105–178 pertaining to the Gastineau Channel second crossing

to Douglas Island project.

Section 338 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.

Section 339 authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration to

use funds from airport sponsors for the hiring of additional staff or

for obtaining services of consultants for the purpose of facilitating

environmental activities related to airport projects that add critical

airport capacity to the national air transportation system.

Section 340 amends item number 642 in section 1602 of Public

Law 105–178 to redesignate such project as the Kitsap County-Seattle passenger only ferry project.

Section 341 amends item number 1793 in section 1602 of Public

Law 105–178 to redesignate such project as the Kitsap County-Seattle passenger only ferry project.

Section 342 amends item number 576 in section 1602 of Public

Law 105–178 to redesignate such project as construction for the

Missouri Center for Advanced Highway Safety.

Section 343 requires the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

Authority (WMATA) to redesignate the transit station known as

the National Airport Station as the ‘‘Ronald Reagan Washington

National Airport Station’’, and requires WMATA to modify signs,

maps, directories, documents, and other records published by

WMATA to reflect the redesignation.

The Committee has not included provisions proposed in the budget: (1) restricting eligibility for essential air service subsidies; (2)

increasing fees charged for hazardous material registration and inspection and crediting such fees to the research and special programs account; (3) authorizing new railroad safety fees; (4) apportioning buses and bus facilities funding by formula; (5) allowing

funds for rail state safety oversight activities; (6) apportioning job

access and reverse commute grants by formula; and (7) limiting

federal funds for new fixed guideway projects to not more than 50

percent beginning in 2004.

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:

183

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 Coast Guard, Reserve training: Provided, That no more

than $25,800,000 of funds made available under this heading may

be transferred to Coast Guard ‘‘Operating expenses’’ or otherwise

made available to reimburse the Coast Guard for financial support

of the Coast Guard Reserve.

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 the general provisions:

Sec. 314. 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, 2004, and

other recoveries, shall be available for other projects under 49

U.S.C. 5309.

Sec. 315. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any funds

appropriated before October 1, 2001, 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.

184

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):

SECTION 232 OF H.R. 3425

(As enacted into law by section 1000(a)(5) of P.L. 106–113)

øSEC. 232. In addition to amounts provided to the Federal Railroad Administration in Public Law 106–69, for necessary expenses

for engineering, design and construction activities to enable the

James A. Farley Post Office in New York City to be used as a train

station and commercial center, to become available on October 1 of

the fiscal year specified and to remain available until expended: fiscal year 2001, $20,000,000; fiscal year 2002, $20,000,000; fiscal

year 2003, $20,000,000.¿

SECTION 1602 OF THE TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT

FOR THE 21st CENTURY

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

*** ***

576 Missouri ....... øBull Shoals Lake Ferry in Taney County¿ Construct the Missouri Center for Advanced

Highway Safety (MOCAHS).

0.69275

*** ***

642 Washington .. øConstruct passenger ferry facility to serve Southworth, Seattle¿ Passenger only ferry

to serve Kitsap County, Seattle.

3.75

*** ***

1348 Alaska .......... øExtend West Douglas Road¿ Construct Gastineau Channel Second Crossing to Douglas Island.2.475

*** ***

1793 Washington .. øSouthworth Seattle Ferry¿ Passenger only ferry to serve Kitsap County, Seattle ......... 0.962

* * * * * * *

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

185

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.

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 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 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, ‘‘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’’ that requires the Secretary of Transportation to transmit a comprehensive capital investment plan for

the United States Coast Guard, and includes language that requires a certification by the Secretary and the OMB Director regarding the Integrated Deepwater Systems program prior to the

obligation of funds for the system integration contract.

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ‘‘Research, development, test, and evaluation’’ that credits funds received from state

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, muVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00185 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A279.003 pfrm04 PsN: A279
186

nicipalities, 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 provides for procurement, installation, and commissioning of runway incursion prevention devices

and systems at airports.

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’, that provides $10,000,000 of the funds

for small airports due to returned entitlements to be utilized only

for the small community air service development pilot program.

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’, that provides not more than

$56,300,000 for administration.

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

187

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 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 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, ‘‘Formula grants’’ that provides no more than $5,000,000 for grants

for the costs of planning, delivery, and temporary use of transit vehicles for special transportation needs and construction of temporary transportation facilities for the XIX Winter Olympiad and

the VIII Paralympiad for the Disabled in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Such grants shall be made to the Utah Department of Transportation and shall not be subject to any local share requirement or

limitation on operating assistance.

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 Federal Transit Administration,

‘‘Capital Investment Grants,’’ that prohibits funds for section

3015(b) of Public Law 105–178.

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,

‘‘Capital Investment Grants,’’ specifying the distribution of funds

for new fixed guideway systems in this Act.

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.

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

188

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 $950,000 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 310 allows $56,300,000 of funds authorized under section

110 of title 23, United States Code, to carry out a program for state

and Federal border infrastructure construction.

Section 313 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 317 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 318 allows funds made available for Alaska or Hawaii

ferry boats or ferry terminal facilities to be used for other purposes.

Section 319 allows funds received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of data products be credited to the

Federal-aid highways account for the purpose of reimbursing the

Bureau for such expenses.

Section 320 prohibits funds for any type of training which: (a)

does not meet needs for knowledge, skills, and abilities bearing directly on the performance of official duties; (b) could be highly

stressful or emotional to the students; (c) does not provide prior notification of content and methods to be used during the training; (d)

contains any religious concepts or ideas; (e) attempts to modify a

person’s values or lifestyle; or (f) is for AIDS awareness training,

except for raising awareness of medical ramifications of AIDS and

workplace rights.

189

Section 323 allows $18,000,000 of the funds provided under the

motor carrier safety grant program to be reserved for grants to Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas for the hiring of new

State motor carrier safety inspectors at the United States/Mexico

border and includes provisions pertaining to the distribution of

such funds.

Section 324 credits to appropriations of the Department of Transportation rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees and

other funds received by the department from travel management

centers, charge card programs, the subleasing of building space,

and miscellaneous sources.

Section 325 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to allow

issuers to redeem or repurchase preferred stock sold to the Department of Transportation.

Section 326 specifies duties of the Amtrak Reform Council.

Section 327 prohibits funds in this Act for making a grant 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 328 repeals section 232 of appendix E of Public Law 106– 113 pertaining to funding for the James A. Farley Post Office in

New York City, New York.

Section 333 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.

Section 334 allows provides that the Mohall Railroad, Inc. may

abandon track from Granville to Landsford, North Dakota, and

that such abandoned track will not count against the limitation

contained in section 402 of Public Law 97–102.

Section 335 allows the Secretary of Transportation to use up to

1 percent of the amounts made available under 49 U.S.C. 5309 for

oversight activities under 49 U.S.C. 5327.

Section 336 authorizes Amtrak to obtain services from the General Services Administration under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 for fiscal year 2001 and each fiscal year thereafter until the fiscal year Amtrak operates without

federal operating grant funds.

Section 337 amends section 1602 of Public Law 105–178 to allow

funds for the Gastineau Channel second crossing to Douglas Island

in Alaska.

Section 339 authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration to

use funds from airport sponsors for the hiring of additional staff or

for obtaining services of consultants for the purpose of facilitating

environmental activities related to airport projects that add critical

airport capacity to the national air transportation system.

Sections 340 and 341 amend section 1602 of Public Law 105–178

to allow funds for the Kitsap County-Seattle passenger only ferry

project in Washington.

Section 342 amends section 1602 of Public Law 105–178 to allow

funds for the Missouri center for advanced highway safety

190

Section 343 requires the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

Authority (WMATA) to redesignate the transit station known as

National Airport Station as the ‘‘Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport Station’’, and to modify all relative signs, maps, directories, and documents published by WMATA.

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

Office of the Secretary:

Payments to air carriers (Airport and

airway trust fund) ............................ N/A 1 $50,000 N/A 2 $13,000

Coast Guard:

Operating Expenses ............................... 1999 3 3,006,200 $3,013,506 3,382,588

Acquisition, construction, and improvements ................................................ 1999 4 1,140,600 625,465 600,000

Environmental compliance and restoration .................................................... 1999 26,000 21,000 16,927

Alteration of bridges ............................. 1999 26,000 37,575 15,466

Retired pay ............................................ 1999 691,493 684,000 876,346

Research, development, test, and evaluation ................................................ 1999 18,300 17,000 21,722

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:

Operations and Research ..................... 2001 116,976 116,615 122,420

Federal Railroad Administration:

Safety and Operations 5 ........................ 1998 90,739 77,311 110,461

Next generation high-speed rail ........... 2001 35,000 25,100 25,100

Federal Transit Administration:

Capital investment grants (Highway

trust fund) ........................................ 2003 2,841,000 N/A 6 2,871,152

Research and Special Programs Administration:

Hazardous materials safety .................. 1997 19,670 15,472 21,348

Pipeline Safety ...................................... 2000 37,718 30,447 48,475

Surface Transportation Board:

Salaries and Expenses .......................... 1998 12,000 13,850 13,850

1 Current law permanently authorizes and provides this level, derived from overflight user fees or other FAA resources.

2 New budget authority.

3 Includes $151,500 authorized in the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act through fiscal year 2001.

4 Includes $630,300 authorized in the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act through fiscal year 1999.

5 Past appropriations provided as two separate accounts: Office of the Administrator and Railroad safety. The authorized level shown is the

Railroad safety appropriation. The Office of the Administrator had general authority under 49 U.S.C. Section 103, however, no specific amount

was authorized. 6 Includes approximately $30,152 of previously provided funds available for reallocation.

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

191

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 Budget authority Outlays

Comparison with Budget Resolution:

Discretionary ......................................................................... $14,893 $53,840 $14,893 $53,816

Mandatory ............................................................................. ¥915 801 ¥915 801

Total .................................................................................. 13,978 54,641 13,978 54,617

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 ................................................................................... $17,098

Outlays:

2002 ................................................................................................. 1 21,932

2003 ................................................................................................. 19,926

2004 ................................................................................................. 8,849

2005 ................................................................................................. 4,034

2006 and beyond ............................................................................. 4,261 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 .................................................................................... $1,043

Fiscal year 2002 outlays ........................................................................ 9,908

RESCISSIONS

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 Aviation Administration, Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and airway trust fund), rescission of contract authority ........ ¥$301,000,000

Federal Highway Administration, State infrastructure banks .......... ¥6,000,000

Federal Railroad Administration, James A. Farley Post Office (rescission of advanced appropriations, fiscal years 2002 and 2003) ¥40,000,000

192

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the House

of Representatives, the results of each roll call 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:

ROLL CALL NUMBER: 1

Date: June 20, 2001.

Measure: Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations

Bill, FY 2002.

Motion by: Mr. Rogers.

Description of Motion: To direct the Department of Transportation to ensure safety by establishing and conducting an oversight

program to assess the operational safety of Mexican motor carriers

seeking authority to operate in the United States.

Results: Adopted 37 yeas to 27 nays.

Mr. Aderholt Mr. Boyd

Mr. Bonilla Mr. Clyburn

Mr. Callahan Mr. Cramer

Mr. Cunningham Ms. DeLauro

Mr. DeLay Mr. Edwards

Mr. Doolittle Mr. Farr

Mrs. Emerson Mr. Fattah

Mr. Frelinghuysen Mr. Goode

Ms. Granger Mr. Hinchey

Mr. Hobson Mr. Hoyer

Mr. Istook Mr. Jackson

Mr. Kingston Ms. Kaptur

Mr. Knollenberg Mr. Kennedy

Mr. Kolbe Ms. Kilpatrick

Mr. LaHood Mrs. Lowey

Mr. Latham Mrs. Meek

Mr. Lewis Mr. Moran

Mr. Miller Mr. Murtha

Mr. Mollohan Mr. Obey

Mr. Nethercutt Mr. Olver

Mrs. Northup Ms. Pelosi

Mr. Pastor Mr. Price

Mr. Peterson Mr. Rothman

Mr. Regula Ms. Roybal-Allard

Mr. Rogers Mr. Sabo

Mr. Serrano Mr. Visclosky

Mr. Sherwood Mr. Wolf

Mr. Skeen

Mr. Sununu

Mr. Sweeney

Mr. Taylor

Mr. Tiahrt

Mr. Vitter

Mr. Walsh

Mr. Wamp

Mr. Wicker

Mr. Young

194


Insert offset folio 03 here 73279.034
195


Insert offset folio 04 here 73279.035
196


Insert offset folio 05 here 73279.036
197


Insert offset folio 06 here 73279.037
198


Insert offset folio 07 here 73279.038
199


Insert offset folio 08 here 73279.039
200


Insert offset folio 09 here 73279.040
201


Insert offset folio 010 here 73279.041
202


Insert offset folio 011 here 73279.042
203


Insert offset folio 012 here 73279.043
204


Insert offset folio 013 here 73279.044
205


Insert offset folio 014 here 73279.045
206


Insert offset folio 015 here 73279.046
207


Insert offset folio 016 here 73279.047
208


Insert offset folio 017 here 73279.048
209


Insert offset folio 018 here 73279.049
210


Insert offset folio 019 here 73279.050
211


Insert offset folio 020 here 73279.051
212


Insert offset folio 021 here 73279.052
(213)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE HON. DAVID R. OBEY, HON.

MARTIN OLAV SABO, HON. JAMES CLYBURN AND HON.

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK

The Administration has announced its intention to open the border to allow Mexican motor carriers to operate throughout the

United States beginning on January 1, 2002.

We have serious concerns that the Administration underestimates the threat to the public of unsafe motor carrier operations,

and believe that it has the obligation to conduct meaningful safety

reviews up front to ensure that individual Mexican motor carriers

will operate safely in the United States.

The Mexican motor carrier safety oversight system is substantially different from those in the U.S. and Canada. In fact, Mexican

motor carriers operate with virtually no safety oversight today.

Mexico has no motor carrier hours of service regulations. Even

though the Mexican government is now implementing a driver

record database, there is currently no way to check the driving history of Mexican motor carrier drivers. In addition, Mexico has no

roadside inspection program now and will not finalize its proposed

roadside inspection program until October, 2001.

Mexican motor carrier out-of-service rates in Texas and Arizona—which currently account for over 76 percent of border crossings—were 40 percent in the year 2000. This means that when an

inspector stops a truck to examine its safety condition and records,

two out of five trucks cannot go back on the road because the

equipment is faulty or the carrier does not have the correct authority to operate. This out-of-service rate is fifty percent higher than

that for U.S. motor carriers. In testimony last year, the Department of Transportation (DOT) Inspector General said, ‘‘I don’t

think there is any reasonable person who can say that it is safe

when you have an out of service rate, for safety reasons, in the

neighborhood of 40 to 50 percent.’’

The DOT currently plans to conduct a paper review of applications for Mexican motor carriers to operate beyond the commercial

zones, and a safety compliance review within 18 months. This does

not go far enough to ensure the safety of the American public. A

safety review should be done first—before granting conditional operating authority, and DOT should continue to monitor these carriers closely after they receive this authority. DOT has estimated

that a safety review will take less than one day per carrier. This

is not too much to ask to help ensure safety on our roads.

In committee, an amendment was offered, but not adopted, that

would have required such up-front safety reviews. That amendment would have restricted funding to process conditional operating authority applications of Mexican motor carriers, contingent

on the Administration’s implementation of a procedure to deterVerDate 21-JUN-2001 04:10 Jun 23, 2001 Jkt 073279 PO 00000 Frm 00213 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\A279.003 pfrm04 PsN: A279
214

mine that these carriers are safe before they are allowed to travel

beyond the 20-mile commercial zones.

Opponents of the amendment alleged that it would have resulted

in a NAFTA violation. One need only read the NAFTA Panel’s February 6, 2001 determination to realize that this is not so. The

Panel concluded that ‘‘compliance by the United States with its

NAFTA obligations would not necessarily require providing favorable consideration to all or to any specific number of applications

from Mexican-owned trucking firms, when it is evident that a particular applicant or applicants may be unable to comply with U.S.

trucking regulation when operating in the United States.’’ It was also alleged that there is no way for DOT to conduct a

safety review before issuing condition operating authority because,

quoting DOT, ‘‘A reliable safety audit can only be accomplished

when meaningful data on safety performance and compliance with

U.S. safety standards are available for evaluation.’’ This is a circular argument—we can’t evaluate them because

they are not operating, so we must allow them to operate before

we can evaluate them. We strongly disagree. A number of Mexican

motor carriers that will seek to operate throughout the U.S. have

experience in the commercial zone. DOT certainly should be able

to evaluate them based on their operations within the U.S. commercial zones over the past years. If DOT does not have safety data

on these carriers, we should be worried about its ability to monitor

any new motor carrier.

For those Mexican motor carriers that have no experience operating in the commercial zones and want access to operate throughout the United States, DOT contends that—with a total of five

staff—it can ensure public safety with what is basically a paper review of applications. No reasonably person should be convinced by

this argument.

It is difficult to believe that there is no value in sending U.S.

motor carrier safety inspectors to the headquarters of a Mexican

carrier seeking authority to operate beyond the commercial zones.

Our inspectors can make sure that the carrier understands our

laws and has policies in place to ensure that its drivers are qualified and its vehicles are maintained properly.

It is a shame that this bill contains no meaningful guidance to

the Administration so that necessary steps will be taken to ensure

that Mexican motor carriers will operate safely throughout the U.S.

when the border opens in six months. We sincerely hope that this

inaction will not result in needless injuries and deaths.

DAVID R. OBEY.

MARTIN OLAV SABO.

CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK.

JAMES CLYBURN.

(215)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE HON. JAMES P. MORAN

The committee adopted an amendment mandating that the

Washington (DC) Metropolitan Area Transit Authority change all

of its maps and signs so that the National Airport station is designated as the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport station. WMATA is a local authority and is governed by a local, not

federal, board. No other transit station in this country has been

named by the Congress and that is for good reason—the Congress

has no business dictating the names of local transit stations. When

he was President, Ronald Reagan was a staunch believer in the

rights of states and localities to determine what is best for them—

this proposal, done in his name makes a mockery of his beliefs. It

also places an unfunded mandate on a local entity.

JAMES P. MORAN.

Æ