73–792 PS

Calendar No. 88

107TH CONGRESS REPORT

1st Session " ! SENATE 107–38

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2002

JUNE 13, 2001.—Ordered to be printed

Filed under authority of the order of the Senate of January 3, 2001

Mrs. MURRAY, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 1178]

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1178) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002, and

for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that

the bill do pass.

Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2002

Amount of bill as reported to Senate ...................... $17,885,293,000

Amount of budget estimates, 2002 .......................... 17,163,605,000

Fiscal year 2001 enacted .......................................... 18,494,505,000
(2)

C O N T E N T S

SUMMARY OF MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS

Page

Total obligational authority .................................................................................... 4

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Salaries and expenses .............................................................................................

Office of Civil Rights ............................................................................................... 10

Transportation planning, research, and development .......................................... 10

Transportation Administrative Service Center ..................................................... 11

Essential Air Service and Rural Airport Improvement Fund .............................. 12

Minority Business Resource Center Program ....................................................... 14

Minority business outreach ..................................................................................... 15

U.S. COAST GUARD

Operating expenses ................................................................................................. 18

Acquisition, construction, and improvements ....................................................... 23

Environmental compliance and restoration ........................................................... 31

Alteration of bridges ................................................................................................ 32

Retired pay ............................................................................................................... 33

Reserve training ....................................................................................................... 33

Research, development, test, and evaluation ........................................................ 33

Boat safety ................................................................................................................ 34

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Operations ................................................................................................................ 36

Facilities and equipment ......................................................................................... 41

Research, engineering, and development ............................................................... 52

Grants-in-aid for airports ........................................................................................ 56

Small community air service development pilot program .................................... 63

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Limitation on administrative expenses .................................................................. 65

Federal-aid highways .............................................................................................. 67

Appalachian development highway system ........................................................... 77

Limitation on Transportation Research ................................................................. 78

Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System ............................................. 81

Bureau of Transportation Statistics ....................................................................... 82

Liquidation of Contract Authorization ................................................................... 82

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Motor carrier safety: Limitation on administrative expense ............................... 83

National motor carrier safety program .................................................................. 90

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Operations and research ......................................................................................... 91

Highway traffic safety grants ................................................................................. 96
Page

3

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

Safety and operations .............................................................................................. 99

Railroad research and development ....................................................................... 99

Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program .......................... 101

Next generation high-speed rail ............................................................................. 101

Alaska railroad rehabilitation ................................................................................ 102

National Rail Development and Rehabilitation .................................................... 103

Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) ....... 103

Amtrak Reform Council ................................................................................... 105

Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project ................................................ 106

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Administrative expenses ......................................................................................... 107

Formula grants ........................................................................................................ 107

University transportation research ........................................................................ 110

Transit planning and research ............................................................................... 110

Trust fund share of expenses .................................................................................. 111

Capital investment grants ...................................................................................... 112

Job access and reverse commute grants ................................................................ 149

ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Operations and maintenance .................................................................................. 150

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

Research and special programs .............................................................................. 151

Pipeline safety .......................................................................................................... 154

Emergency preparedness grants ............................................................................ 155

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................. 156

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................. 157

TITLE II—RELATED AGENCIES

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board: Salaries and

expenses ................................................................................................................ 158

National Transportation Safety Board: Salaries and expenses ........................... 158

TITLE III—GENERAL PROVISIONS

General provisions ................................................................................................... 160

Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the

Senate ................................................................................................................... 163

Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the

Senate ................................................................................................................... 163

Budgetary impact statement .................................................................................. 170
(4)

TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY PROVIDED—GENERAL FUNDS AND

TRUST FUNDS

In addition to the appropriation of $17,885,293,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year 2002, large amounts of contract authority are provided by law, the obligation limits for which are contained in the annual appropriations bill. The principal items in this

category are the trust funded programs for Federal-aid highways,

for mass transit, and for airport development grants. For fiscal

year 2002, estimated obligation limitations total $41,222,799,000.

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 appropriations

acts (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 discretionary

grants and discretionary grant allocations made through either bill

or report language. In addition, the percentage reductions made

pursuant to a sequestration order to funds appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal Aviation Administration, and for acquisition, construction, and improvements, Coast Guard, shall be

applied equally to each budget item that is listed under said accounts in the budget justifications submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as modified by subsequent appropriations acts and accompanying committee reports, conference

reports, or joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference.

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, the previous authorization for most Federal highway, transit, and highway

safety programs, expired on September 30, 1997. On May 22, 1998,

the Congress passed a new authorization bill, the Transportation

Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA21], which the President

signed into law on June 9, 1998. Under this law, most of the authorizations are contract authority; that is, they are available for

obligation without appropriation. The role of the appropriations

process with respect to contract authority programs generally is to

set obligation limitations so that overall Federal spending stays
5

within legislated targets and to appropriate liquidating cash to

cover the outlays associated with obligations that have been made.

In March 2000, the Congress passed the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century, which the

President signed into law on April 5, 2000. The Committee recommendation, within budgetary realities, attempts to honor the

priorities articulated in that legislation.
(6)

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $63,245,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 69,500,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 67,349,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $139,139 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

Section 3 of the Department of Transportation Act of October 15,

1966 (Public Law 89–670) provides for establishment of the Office

of the Secretary of Transportation [OST]. The Office of the Secretary is composed of the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary immediate offices, the Office of the General Counsel, and five assistant secretarial offices for transportation policy, aviation and international affairs, budget and programs, governmental affairs, and

administration. These secretarial offices have policy development

and central supervisory and coordinating functions related to the

overall planning and direction of the Department of Transportation, including staff assistance and general management supervision of the counterpart offices in the operating administrations of

the Department.

Unlike the Transportation Appropriations Bill for fiscal year

2001 as passed by the Senate, the bill does not provide separate

appropriations for each of the offices within the Office of the Secretary. However, the Committee expects the Secretary to adhere to

all the reprogramming requirements governing his office. The Committee understands that the Secretary is giving consideration to reorganizing his office. The Committee will give careful consideration

to such a reprogramming request once it is submitted.

The Committee recommends a total of $67,349,000 for the Office

of the Secretary of Transportation including $60,000 for reception

and representation expenses.

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate:

(In thousands of dollars)

Fiscal year— Committee

recommendation 2001 enacted 1

2002 estimate

Immediate Office of the Secretary ................................................ 1,823 1,989 1,929

Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary .................................... 586 638 619

Office of the Executive Secretariat ............................................... 1,178 1,241 1,204

Board of Contract Appeals ............................................................ 495 523 507

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization ............ 1,189 1,251 1,213

Office of Intelligence and Security ............................................... 1,259 1,321 1,281

Office of the Chief Information Officer ......................................... 6,208 6,331 6,141
7

(In thousands of dollars)

Fiscal year— Committee

recommendation 2001 enacted 1

2002 estimate

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs ......... 2,145 2,282 2,214

Office of the General Counsel ....................................................... 9,950 13,355 14,075

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International

Affairs ....................................................................................... 7,273 7,650 7,421

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy ......... 3,004 3,153 3,058

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs ....... 7,346 7,728 7,728

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ................... 18,978 20,262 18,236

Assistant to the Secretary and Director of Public Affairs ............ 1,670 1,776 1,723

Total ................................................................................. 63,106 69,500 67,349

1 Reflects reduction of $139,139 (0.22 percent) pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,929,000 for

fiscal year 2002 for the Immediate Office of the Secretary. The Immediate Office of the Secretary has the primary responsibility to

provide overall planning, direction, and control of departmental affairs.

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

The Committee has recommended a total of $619,000 for the Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary which has the primary responsibility of assisting the Secretary in the overall planning and

direction of the Department.

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

The Committee recommends $14,075,000 for fiscal year 2002 for

the Office of the General Counsel. The Office of the General Counsel provides legal services to the Office of the Secretary and coordinates and reviews the legal work in the chief counsels’ offices of the

operating administrations. The General Counsel is the chief legal

officer of the Department of Transportation and the final authority

within the Department on all legal questions. The Committee approves the agency’s request for an increase of $2,494,000 to be used

for the Department’s ‘‘Accessibility of All America’’ initiative. These

resources will assist the Department in carrying out the requirements in the Air Carrier Access Act of 1986 (ACAA) and Section

707 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act

for the 21st Century (AIR–21). The Committee notes that the DOT

Inspector General’s final report on airline customer service (Report

AV–2001–020) stated that complaints regarding the treatment of

disabled passengers in 2000 increased by 14.8 percent over 1999.

The Committee expects the Office of the General Counsel to move

expeditiously in implementing the disability and consumer related

provisions in AIR–21. The Committee further expects the Office of

the General Counsel to take immediate steps to implement the

ACAA technical assistance and information activities to include the

following: updating all ACAA-related publications and preparing a

quarterly newsletter; translating all ACAA publications into Braille
8

and creating large-print and audiotape versions; establishing a 1–

800 disability inquiry line staffed from 7 a.m. until 11 p.m. each

day; creating a fax on-demand system for publications; conducting

reviews of major airline ACAA training programs and providing

relevant assistance; developing a plain language technical assistance manual for ACAA compliance. The Committee also includes

$720,000 to establish a toll-free number for the aviation consumer

protection division. This toll-free line will provide a centralized

place for consumers to go to file aviation complaints.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY

For fiscal year 2002, the Committee provides $3,058,000 for the

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy which is the primary

policy office of the Department and is responsible to the Secretary

for analysis, development, articulation, and review of policies and

plans for domestic transportation.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR AVIATION AND

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

The Committee recommends $7,421,000 for the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs which is responsible

for administering the economic regulatory functions regarding the

airline industry. In addition, the Assistant Secretary provides departmental leadership and coordination on international transportation policy issues relating to maritime, trade, technical assistance, and cooperation programs. As overseer of airline economic

regulation, the Assistant Secretary is responsible for international

aviation programs, the essential air service program, airline fitness

and licensing, acquisitions, international route awards, and special

investigations such as airline delays and computer reservations

systems (CRS).

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends a total of $7,728,000 for the Office

of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The Assistant

Secretary for Budget and Programs is the principal staff advisor to

the Secretary on the development, review, presentation, and execution of the Department’s budget resource requirements, and on the

evaluation and oversight of the Department’s programs. The primary responsibilities of this office are to ensure the effective preparation and presentation of sound and adequate budget estimates

for the Department, to ensure the consistency of the Department’s

budget execution with the action and advice of the Congress and

the Office of Management and Budget, to evaluate the program

proposals for consistency with the Secretary’s stated objectives, and

to advise the Secretary of program and legislative changes necessary to improve program effectiveness.

The Committee directs the Office of the Secretary to report

monthly on the status of all outstanding report and reporting requirements, including how delinquent congressionally mandated or

requested reports are and an estimated date for delivery. The Committee expects that the Department will constitute this responsi-
9

bility in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

The Committee recommends $2,214,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs which advises the Secretary on all congressional and intergovernmental activities and on

all departmental legislative initiatives and other relationships with

Members of Congress. The Assistant Secretary promotes effective

communication with other Federal agencies and regional Department officials, and with State and local governments and national

organizations for development of departmental programs; and ensures that consumer preferences, awareness, and needs are brought

into the decision-making process.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

The Committee recommends $18,236,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration which includes the Office of

the Secretary portion of rent. The Assistant Secretary for Administration is the principal advisor to the Secretary on departmental

administrative management matters, and is responsible for personnel and training, management policy, employment ceiling control systems, automated systems policy, administrative operations,

real and personal property management, acquisition management,

and grants management.

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

The Committee recommends $1,723,000 for the Office of Public

Affairs which is the principal advisor to the Secretary and other

senior departmental officials and news media on public affairs

questions. The Office issues news releases, articles, fact sheets,

briefing materials, publications, and audiovisual materials. It also

provides information to the Secretary on opinions and reactions of

the public and new media on transportation programs and issues.

EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,204,000 of

the expenses of the Executive Secretariat. The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and Deputy Secretary in carrying out

their management functions and responsibilities by controlling and

coordinating internal and external written materials.

BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

The primary responsibility of the Board of Contract Appeals is to

provide an independent forum for the trial and adjudication of all

claims by, or against, a contractor relating to a contract of any element of the Department, as mandated by the Contract Disputes

Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 601. The Committee has provided $507,000

for the Board of Contract Appeals Board.

OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION

The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization has

primary responsibility for providing policy direction for small and
10

disadvantaged business participation in the Department’s procurement and grant programs, and effective execution of the functions

and duties under sections 8 and 15 of the Small Business Act, as

amended. The Committee recommends $1,213,000.

OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY

The Committee recommends $1,281,000 for the Office of Intelligence and Security which coordinates security and intelligence

policies and strategies among the modes of transportation and

serves as liaison with other Government intelligence and law enforcement agencies.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

The Committee recommends $6,141,000 for the Office of the

Chief Information Officer which serves as the principal adviser to

the Secretary on matters involving information resources and information systems management.

OFFICE OF INTERMODALISM

The Committee recommends $1,222,000 for the Office of Intermodalism to be funded within the Federal Highway Administration’s limitation on administrative expenses. The Committee does

not recommend funding for the Office of Intermodalism in the Office of the Secretary accounts.

OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $8,140,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 8,500,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,500,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $17,908 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

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

formulating civil rights policies and procedures for the operating

administrations, investigating claims that small businesses were

denied certification or improperly certified as disadvantaged business enterprises, and overseeing the Department’s conduct of its

civil rights responsibilities and making final determinations on

civil rights complaints. In addition, the Civil Rights Office is responsible for enforcing laws and regulations which prohibit discrimination in federally operated and federally assisted transportation programs. The Committee has provided a funding level of

$8,500,000 for the Office of Civil Rights.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $11,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 5,193,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,592,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $24,200 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

The Office of the Secretary performs those research activities and

studies which can more effectively or appropriately be conducted at

the departmental level. This research effort supports the planning,

research and development activities, and systems development
11

needed to assist the Secretary in the formulation of national transportation policies. The program is carried out primarily through

contracts with other Federal agencies, educational institutions,

nonprofit research organizations, and private firms. The Committee

recommends $15,592,000 for transportation planning, research, and

development, $4,592,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 enacted

level and $10,399,000 more than the President’s budget request.

Within the funds provided, the Committee includes $4,000,000 for

the Northeast Advanced Vehicle Consortium for the development of

a zero emission, hydrogen powered, ambient pressure, high efficiency fuel cell bus. The Committee also includes $1,000,000 for

WestStart’s development and demonstration of the Vehicular

Flywheel Project in the Pacific Northwest. In addition, the Committee includes $200,000 for the design and analysis to establish

a new international ferry service from Blaine, Washington to White

Rock, British Columbia. Within the funds provided, the Committee

has also included $3,000,000 to enable the Secretary to work with

officials at Missoula International Airport in Missoula, Montana on

a runway relocation study. In addition, the Committee has included

$2,000,000 for capacity and safety improvements at the Richmond

International Airport in Richmond, Virginia.

TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CENTER

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

Budget estimate, 2002 1 ......................................................................... (125,323,000)

Committee recommendation ................................................................. (125,323,000)

1Proposed without limitations. Includes DOT only.

The Transportation Administrative Service Center [TASC] provides a business operation fund for DOT to provide a wide range

of administrative services to the Department and other customers.

TASC functions as an entrepreneurial and self-sufficient entity and

provides competitive quality services responsive to customer needs.

The TASC is governed by a Board of Directors composed of customer agencies operating in a competitive business-like environment. The TASC presents proposed operating and financial plans

to the Board at the beginning of each fiscal year. Once the Board

has approved those plans the TASC provides products and services

to its full customer base. The Director of TASC provides quarterly

performance and financial reports to the Board, makes recommendations for changes to the approved plans and is responsible

for the day-to-day management of the TASC. DOT administrations

must procure consolidated administrative services from the TASC

unless a financial analysis of the services demonstrates that it is

more cost beneficial to the Department as a whole—not to an individual operating entity alone—to change the nature of the service

delivery (to consolidate a service or to decentralize a service). TASC

services are being marketed to customers outside DOT to provide

greater economies of scale, thus reducing costs to individual customers. TASC services include:

—Functions formerly in DOT’s working capital fund [WCF];

—Office of the Secretary [OST] personnel, procurement and information technology support operations;

—Systems development staff;
12

—Operations of the consolidated departmental dockets facilities;

and —Certain departmental services and administrative operations,

such as human resources management programs, transit fare

subsidy payments, and employee wellness including substance

awareness and testing.

All of the services of the TASC will be financed through customer

reimbursements, to the extent possible, on a fee-for-service basis.

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE AND RURAL AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT FUND

Approriations Mandatory 2 Total

Appropriations, 2001 ......................................................... 1 $14,000,000 $36,000,000 $50,000,000

Budget estimate 2002 ...................................................... 3 10,000,000 40,000,000 50,000,000

Committee recommendation .............................................. ........................ 50,000,000 50,000,000

1 Transfer from FAA operations general fund.

2 From overflight fees.

3 From FAA Grants-in-aid for airports.

The Essential Air Service [EAS] and Rural Airport Improvement

Program provides funds directly to commuter/regional airlines to

provide air service to small communities that otherwise would not

receive air service and for rural airport improvement as provided

by the 1996 Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act.

The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 authorizes

user fees for flights that fly over, but do not land in, the United

States. The first $50,000,000 of each year’s fees were to go directly

to carry out the Essential Air Service Program and, to the extent

not used for essential air service, to improve rural airport safety.

If $50,000,000 in fees is not available, the Committee has included

bill language permitting the FAA Administrator to transfer up to

$10,000,000 from the grants-in-aid for airports program in order to

bring funding for the EAS program to the $50,000,000 level.

The administration is proposing to tighten the eligibility criteria

for communities to receive EAS subsidies. Specifically, no EAS subsidy would be provided 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, or fewer than 50 miles

from the nearest airport providing scheduled service with jet aircraft.

Many EAS points are located in remote rural areas: over 70 percent of the communities receiving subsidized service under the program are more than 100 highway miles from the nearest small,

medium, or large hub airport. Thirty more communities are located

in Alaska, where, in all but two cases, year-round road access does

not exist, and in many instances does not exist at all. Without air

service, such communities would be further isolated from the Nation’s economic centers. The funding provided is adequate to maintain existing levels of service in Alaska.

Moreover, businesses are typically interested in locating in areas

that have convenient access to scheduled air service. Loss of service

would seriously hamper small communities’ ability to attract new

business or even to retain those they now have, resulting in further

strain on local economies and loss of jobs.
13

The following table reflects the points currently receiving service

and the annual rates as of April 1, 2001 in the continental United

States and Hawaii based on the President’s new eligibility criteria.

EAS SUBSIDY RATES AS OF APRIL 1, 2001

States/communities

Estimated mileage

to nearest hub

(small, medium,

or large) 1

Average daily

enplanements at

EAS point (year

ending September

30, 2000)

Annual subsidy

rates (April 1,

2001)

Subsidy per

passenger

Total passengers

(year ending September 30, 2000)

ARIZONA:

Kingman ............................. 101 7.6 $542,353 $114.69 4,729

Page ................................... 280 13.4 1,251,977 149.54 8,372

Prescott .............................. 102 22.9 542,353 37.81 14,343

Show Low ........................... 168 12.7 410,080 51.60 7,947

ARKANSAS:

El Dorado/Camden ............. 108 4.9 825,569 271.66 3,039

Harrison .............................. 77 7.1 1,125,591 255.00 4,414

CALIFORNIA:

Crescent City ...................... 234 37.4 314,865 13.43 23,443

Merced ................................ 114 15.0 1,022,712 109.07 9,377

COLORADO:

Alamosa .............................. 162 15.2 925,045 97.42 9,495

Cortez ................................. 258 28.0 403,311 23.02 17,519

HAWAII: Kalaupapa ...................... ( 2 ) 6.8 272,807 64.48 4,231

ILLINOIS: Marion/Herrin ............... 126 28.8 794,031 44.05 18,027

IOWA:

Burlington ........................... 163 37.3 600,000 25.70 23,345

Ottumwa ............................. 85 2.6 380,039 233.73 1,626

KANSAS:

Dodge City .......................... 149 16.5 760,384 73.68 10,320

Garden City ........................ 201 29.8 829,665 44.52 18,634

Great Bend ......................... 120 10.2 168,347 26.39 6,379

Hays .................................... 180 23.7 907,791 61.14 14,848

Liberal/Guymon ................... 141 12.1 625,831 82.43 7,592

MAINE:

Bar Harbor .......................... 157 42.4 634,145 23.88 26,556

Presque Isle ........................ 276 83.6 1,082,408 20.69 52,321

Rockland ............................. 80 23.9 634,145 42.33 14,982

MICHIGAN:

Ironwood/Ashland ............... 218 6.7 544,269 128.94 4,221

Iron Mountain/Kingsford ..... 101 29.8 473,599 25.42 18,634

Manistee ............................. 110 3.8 361,808 153.18 2,362

MISSOURI:

Cape Girardeau .................. 123 24.1 $430,925 $28.51 15,117

Fort Leonard Wood ............. 130 23.6 573,725 38.87 14,761

Kirksville ............................. 137 3.4 732,363 342.55 2,138

MONTANA:

Glasgow .............................. 763 6.4 707,462 177.40 3,988

Glendive .............................. 624 3.5 707,462 319.97 2,211

Havre .................................. 674 3.8 707,462 298.51 2,370

Lewistown ........................... 558 3.2 707,462 357.85 1,977

Miles City ........................... 529 4.4 707,462 256.05 2,763

Sidney ................................. 653 8.6 707,462 131.33 5,387

Wolf Point ........................... 698 5.4 707,462 208.26 3,397

NEBRASKA:

Alliance ............................... 256 4.4 785,175 282.23 2,782

Chadron .............................. 311 6.2 785,175 202.47 3,878

Kearney ............................... 181 31.9 839,487 42.10 19,941

McCook ............................... 271 7.7 1,325,289 275.07 4,818

Norfolk ................................ 109 6.1 531,735 139.97 3,799

North Platte ........................ 277 25.6 106,006 6.61 16,035

NEVADA: Ely ................................. 237 8.3 1,087,340 208.98 5,203

NEW MEXICO:

Clovis .................................. 103 12.3 1,126,523 146.38 7,696

Gallup ................................. 143 4.5 691,080 245.50 2,815
14

EAS SUBSIDY RATES AS OF APRIL 1, 2001—Continued

States/communities

Estimated mileage

to nearest hub

(small, medium,

or large) 1

Average daily

enplanements at

EAS point (year

ending September

30, 2000)

Annual subsidy

rates (April 1,

2001)

Subsidy per

passenger

Total passengers

(year ending September 30, 2000)

Silver City/Hurley/Deming ... 133 10.5 938,297 143.14 6,555

NEW YORK:

Massena ............................. 159 8.7 371,835 68.38 5,438

Ogdensburg ........................ 123 7.4 371,835 80.68 4,609

Saranac Lake ..................... 141 13.6 631,353 74.42 8,484

NORTH DAKOTA:

Devils Lake ......................... 405 8.2 613,389 119.90 5,116

Dickinson ............................ 490 12.2 590,153 77.39 7,626

Jamestown .......................... 332 8.3 613,389 117.96 5,200

OKLAHOMA: Ponca City ............... 81 11.5 972,122 135.43 7,178

SOUTH DAKOTA: Huron ................ 121 10.3 $394,585 $61.44 6,422

TEXAS: Brownwood ...................... 145 6.7 865,886 206.80 4,187

UTAH:

Cedar City .......................... 178 28.3 679,450 38.35 17,718

Moab ................................... 240 5.6 971,444 277.87 3,496

Vernal ................................. 174 11.4 1,102,967 154.63 7,133

VERMONT: Rutland ...................... 90 12.7 634,145 79.83 7,944

WASHINGTON: Ephrata/Moses

Lake ........................................ 101 33.0 514,311 24.93 20,630

WEST VIRGINIA:

Beckley ............................... 181 9.7 857,530 140.88 6,087

Princeton/Bluefield ............. 145 8.0 857,530 171.71 4,994

WYOMING:

Laramie .............................. 144 36.7 297,633 12.94 23,003

Rock Springs ...................... 184 29.7 465,023 25.04 18,573

Worland .............................. 398 8.9 353,345 63.76 5,542

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

the 1999 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.

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $1,900,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 900,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 900,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $4,180 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization

[OSDBU]/Minority Business Resource Center [MBRC].—The

OSDBU/MBRC provides assistance in obtaining short-term working capital and bonding for disadvantaged, minority, and womenowned businesses [DBE/MBE/WBE’s]. In fiscal year 2001, the

short-term lending program was converted from a direct loan program to a guaranteed loan program. In fiscal year 2002, the program will continue to focus on providing working capital to DBE/

MBE/WBE’s for transportation-related projects in order to

strengthen their competitive and productive capabilities.

Since fiscal year 1993, the loan program has been a separate line

item appropriation, which segregated such activities in response to

changes made by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. The limitation on guaranteed loans under the Minority Business Resource

Center is at the administration’s requested level of $18,367,000.

Of the funds appropriated, $500,000 covers the subsidy costs for

loans not to exceed $18,367,000; and, $400,000 is for administrative

expenses to carry out the Guaranteed Loan Program. The subsidy
15

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

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $3,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 3,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,000,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $6,600 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

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 support to historically black and

Hispanic colleges. Separate funding is requested by the administration since this program provides grants and contract assistance

that serves DOT-wide goals and not just OST purposes.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Rebates, refunds, and incentive payments.—The Department receives funds from various Government programs at different time

intervals (that is, weekly, monthly, quarterly). For example, under

the General Services Administration’s Travel Management Center

[TMC] Program, rebate checks received from the travel contractor

are distributed monthly to each element of the Department in proportion to net domestic airline sales arranged by the contractor.

Past expenditures have to be analyzed to determine the proper

sources to refund which can be a time-consuming process. The staff

time and cost associated with the precise accounting for each such

refund is prohibitive. To alleviate the need to specifically identify

the source for each repayment the Committee has included language (sec. 329), as requested, that allows a fair and sensible allocation of the rebates and miscellaneous and other funds.

OTHER

Reductions and supplementals in fiscal year 2001 appropriations.—In fiscal year 2001, the Consolidated Appropriations Act,

Public Law 106–554 rescinded 0.22 percent of discretionary budget

authority and obligation limitations provided for fiscal year 2001.

In the Senate Committee report, each account head shows the

amount appropriated in Public Law 106–346 before the various reductions were made. The table below depicts the amount of funds

appropriated for each of the accounts in Public Law 106–346, and

the reductions and changes thereto.

CHANGES IN FISCAL YEAR 2001 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS

[In thousands of dollars]

Account

Public Laws

106–346, 106– 554, 106–259 and 106–113 appropriations

and obligation

limitation

Public Law 106– 554 Sec. 1403

0.22 percent cut

Net appropriation and obligation limitation

Office of the Secretary:

Salaries and expenses ....................................................................... 63,245 ¥139 63,106

Transportation planning, research, and development ...................... 11,000 ¥24 10,976
16

CHANGES IN FISCAL YEAR 2001 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Account

Public Laws

106–346, 106– 554, 106–259 and 106–113 appropriations

and obligation

limitation

Public Law 106– 554 Sec. 1403

0.22 percent cut

Net appropriation and obligation limitation

Minority Business Resources Center ................................................. 1,900 ¥4 1,896

Minority business outreach ................................................................ 3,000 ¥7 2,993

Office of Civil Rights ......................................................................... 8,140 ¥18 8,122

Subtotal ......................................................................................... 87,285 ¥192 87,093

U.S. Coast Guard:

Operating Expenses ........................................................................... 3,192,000 ¥7,022 3,184,978

Acquisition, construction, and improvements ................................... 415,000 ¥913 414,087

Environmental compliance and restoration ....................................... 16,700 ¥37 16,663

Alteration of bridges .......................................................................... 15,500 ¥34 15,466

Retired pay ......................................................................................... 778,000 ....................... 778,000

Reserve training ................................................................................. 80,375 ¥177 80,198

Research, development, test, and evaluation ................................... 21,320 ¥47 21,273

Subtotal ......................................................................................... 4,518,895 ¥8,230 4,510,665

Federal Aviation Administration:

Operations 1 ........................................................................................ 6,544,235 ¥14,397 6,529,838

Facilities and equipment ................................................................... 2,656,765 ¥5,845 2,650,920

Research, engineering, and development ......................................... 187,000 ¥411 186,589

Grants-in-aid for airports (obligation limitation) ............................. 3,200,000 ¥7,040 3,192,960

Grants-in-aid for airports (rescission of contracts authority) .......... ¥579,000 ....................... ¥579,000

Grants-in-aid for airports (TF appropriation) .................................... 2,500 ¥6 2,495

Subtotal ......................................................................................... 12,011,500 ¥27,699 11,983,801

Federal Highway Administration:

Limitation on administrative expenses ............................................. [295,119] [¥649] [294,470]

Federal-aid highways (obligation limitation) .................................... 29,661,806 ¥65,256 29,596,550

Emergency relief ................................................................................ 720,000 ¥1,584 718,416

Exempt obligations ............................................................................ 1,068,926 ....................... 1,068,926

Appalachian Development Highway System ...................................... 254,963 ¥561 254,402

Miscellaneous appropriations (GF) .................................................... 606,000 ¥1,333 604,667

Miscellaneous highway projects (TF) ................................................. 1,185,100 ¥2,607 1,182,493

Subtotal ......................................................................................... 33,496,795 ¥71,341 33,425,454

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration:

National motor carrier safety program (obligation limitation) ......... 177,000 ¥389 176,611

Motor carrier safety (limitation on administrative expenses) ........... 92,194 ¥203 91,991

Subtotal ......................................................................................... 269,194 ¥592 268,602

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:

Operations and Research, General Fund ........................................... 116,876 ¥257 116,619

Operations and Research, Trust Fund (obligation limitation) .......... 72,000 ¥158 71,842

National driver registration ............................................................... 2,000 ¥4 1,996

Highway safety grants ....................................................................... 213,000 ¥469 212,531

Subtotal ......................................................................................... 403,876 ¥889 402,987

Federal Railroad Administration:

Safety and operations ........................................................................ 101,717 ¥224 101,493

Research and development ............................................................... 25,325 ¥56 25,269

Next generation high speed rail ........................................................ 25,100 ¥55 25,045

Alaska railroad rehabilitation ............................................................ 30,000 ¥44 29,956

Rhode Island rail development .......................................................... 17,000 ¥37 16,963
17

CHANGES IN FISCAL YEAR 2001 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Account

Public Laws

106–346, 106–

554, 106–259

and 106–113

appropriations

and obligation

limitation

Public Law 106–

554 Sec. 1403

0.22 percent cut

Net appropriation and obligation limitation

Grants to Nat’l RR Passenger Corp .................................................. 521,476 ¥1,147 520,329

West Virginia rail development ......................................................... 15,000 ¥33 14,967

Pennsylvania Station redevelopment ................................................. 20,000 ¥44 19,956

Amtrak reform council ....................................................................... 750 ¥2 748

Subtotal ......................................................................................... 756,368 ¥1,642 754,726

Federal Transit Administration:

Administrative expenses (approps and oblig limitation) .................. 64,000 ¥141 63,859

Formula grants (approps and oblig limitation) 2 .............................. 3,294,000 ¥7,247 3,286,753

Univ. transportation research (approps and oblig limitation) .......... 6,000 ¥13 5,987

Transit planning and research (approps and oblig limitation) ........ 110,000 ¥242 109,758

Capital investment grants (approps and oblig limitation) .............. 2,696,000 ¥5,931 2,690,069

Capital investment grants (Trust Fund approps) ............................. 4,500 ¥10 4,490

Job access (approps and oblig limitation) ....................................... 100,000 ¥220 99,780

Subtotal ......................................................................................... 6,274,500 ¥13,804 6,260,696

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corp: Operations and maintenance ...................................................................................................... 13,004 ¥29 12,975

Research and Special Programs Administration:

Research and special programs ........................................................ 36,373 ¥80 36,293

Pipeline safety ................................................................................... 47,044 ¥103 46,941

Emergency preparedness grants ....................................................... 14,300 ¥31 14,269

Subtotal ......................................................................................... 97,717 ¥215 97,502

Bureau of Transportation Statistics 3 ......................................................... [31,000] [¥68] [30,932]

Office of the Inspector General: Salaries and expenses 4 ......................... 49,450 ¥109 49,341

Surface Transportation Board: Salaries and expenses .............................. 17,954 ¥38 17,916

Total, Department of Transportation—Excluding Maritime Administration ............................................................................... 57,996,538 ¥124,779 57,871,759

1 Does not reflect BA transfer to Essential Air Service.

2 Reflects BA transfer of $50,000,000 from formula grants to capital discretionary; and $1,000,000 to OIG.

3 BTS funding included within Federal-aid highways.

4 Includes $1,000,000 BA transfer from FTA formula program.

U.S. COAST GUARD

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2002 PROGRAM

The U.S. 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. In 1939, the U.S. Lighthouse Service was transferred to the Coast Guard, followed by the Bureau of

Marine Inspection and Navigation in 1942. The Coast Guard has

as its primary responsibilities the enforcement of all applicable

Federal laws on the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction

of the United States; promotion of safety of life and property at sea;

assistance to navigation; protection of the marine environment; and
18

maintenance of a state of readiness to function as a specialized

service in the Navy in time of war (14 U.S.C. 1, 2).

The Committee recommends a total program level of $5,174,566,000 for the activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year

2002. This represents an increase of $591,671,000 (13 percent)

above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations:

[In thousands of dollars]

Program

Fiscal year— Committee recommendations 2001 enacted 1 2002 estimate

Operating expenses 2 ................................................... 3,192,000 3,382,838 3,427,588

Acquisition, construction, and improvements ............. 415,000 659,323 669,323

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

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

Retired pay (mandatory) ............................................. 778,000 876,346 876,346

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

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

Boat safety (mandatory) ............................................. 64,000 64,000 64,000

Total ............................................................... 4,582,895 5,119,816 5,174,566

1 Excludes reduction of $8,230,000 for the 0.22 percent government-wide rescission pursuant to Public Law 106–554. 2 Includes funding for national security activities of the Coast Guard scored against budget function 050 (defense discretionary) as follows: fiscal year 2001 enacted amount includes $341,000,000 in defense discretionary funding; fiscal

year 2002 estimate includes $340,250,000 and fiscal year 2002 Committee recommendation includes $695,000,000.

OPERATING EXPENSES

General Trust Total

Appropriations, 2001 1 2 ........................................ $3,167,000,000 $25,000,000 $3,192,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 3 ....................................... 3,357,893,000 24,945,000 3,382,838,000

Committee recommendation 4 ............................... 3,402,588,000 25,000,000 3,427,588,000

1 Includes $341,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).

2 Excludes reduction of $6,967,000 for the 0.22 percent government-wide rescission pursuant to Public Law 106–554. 3 Includes $340,250,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).

4 Includes $695,000,000 for national security activities including drug interdiction scored against budget function 050

(defense).

The ‘‘Operating expenses’’ appropriation provides funds 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.

The program activities of this appropriation fall into the following categories:

Search and rescue.—One of its earliest and most traditional missions, the Coast Guard maintains a nationwide system of boats,

aircraft, cutters, and rescue coordination centers on 24-hour alert.

Aids to navigation.—To help mariners determine their location

and avoid accidents, the Coast Guard maintains a network of

manned and unmanned aids to navigation along our coasts and on

our inland waterways, and operates radio stations in the United

States and abroad to serve the needs of the armed services and marine and air commerce.

Marine safety.—The Coast Guard insures compliance with Federal statutes and regulations designed to improve safety in the
19

merchant marine industry and operates a recreational boating safety program.

Marine environmental protection.—The primary objectives of this

program are to minimize the dangers of marine pollution and to assure the safety of U.S. ports and waterways.

Enforcement of laws and treaties.—The Coast Guard is the principal maritime enforcement agency with regard to Federal laws on

the navigable waters of the United States and the high seas, including fisheries, drug smuggling, illegal immigration, and hijacking of vessels.

Ice operations.—In the Arctic and Antarctic, Coast Guard icebreakers escort supply ships, support research activities and Department of Defense operations, survey uncharted waters, and collect scientific data. The Coast Guard also assists commercial vessels through ice-covered waters.

Defense readiness.—During peacetime the Coast Guard maintains an effective state of military preparedness to operate as a

service in the Navy in time of war or national emergency at the

direction of the President. As such the Coast Guard has primary

responsibility for the security of ports, waterways, and navigable

waters up to 200 miles offshore.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation for Coast Guard operating ex- penses is $3,427,588,000, including $25,000,000 from the oil spill liability trust fund and $695,000,000 from function 050 for the Coast

Guard’s defense-related activities including drug interdiction. This is $44,750,000 above the budget request and $235,588,000 (7.4 percent) more than the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.

Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are listed below:

Change to Item budget estimate

Search and rescue program readiness ................................................. ∂$8,000,000

Pay and benefits shortfalls ................................................................... ∂36,750,000

Service reductions.—The President’s budget proposes a number of

reductions in Coast Guard activities, including the decommissioning and retiring of aging surface and aviation assets, closure of

air facilities, and reductions in some marine safety activities. In his

June 13, 2001 testimony before this Committee, the Commandant

of the Coast Guard stated that ‘‘we need to break the downward

spiral of spending ever increasing amounts of money on older assets.’’ The Committee agrees with this assessment and, therefore,

has provided substantial funding for the Integrated Deepwater Systems program in order to equip the Coast Guard with modern and

efficient assets.

Pay and benefits shortfalls.—The Committee has included

$36,750,000 to fund the additional costs of pay and benefits, including military compensation, housing and subsistence allowances,

and health care, resulting from passage of the Fiscal Year 2002 National Defense Authorization Act and other Department of Defense

policies.

C–130 programmed depot maintenance.—During the past several

fiscal years, the Coast Guard has diverted funds from the aircraft

maintenance account to other operating expenses and then used
20

funding shortages in aircraft maintenance as justification for supplemental appropriations. This pattern has been especially detrimental to the programmed depot maintenance of the long range

maritime patrol aircraft. Due to the diversion of funds, the average

interval in which C–130 aircraft undergo depot maintenance has

increased from 48 months to as long as 59 months. In addition, the

Coast Guard recently entered into a contract, that was issued on

a sole-source basis through a military interdepartmental purchase

request, in which the depot maintenance on the initial aircraft is

estimated to cost nearly five times as much. The Committee is concerned about the Coast Guard’s management of the funds provided

for aircraft maintenance as well as the sole-source basis of the new

contract. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Coast Guard not

to reprogram or divert funds from the aircraft maintenance account. The Committee further directs the Coast Guard to procure

depot maintenance through full and open competitive bid process.

AMSEA.—The Committee recommends $350,000 to be available

only to continue this marine safety training program that trains

fishermen and children in cold water safety techniques.

Marine Fire and Safety Association.—The Committee remains

supportive of efforts by the Marine Fire and Safety Association

(MFSA) to provide specialized firefighting training and maintain

an oil spill response contingency plan for the Columbia River. The

Committee encourages the Secretary to provide funding for MFSA

consistent with the authorization and directs the Secretary to provide $255,000 to continue efforts by the nonprofit organization comprised of numerous fire departments on both sides of the Columbia

River. The funding will be utilized to provide specialized communications, firefighting training and equipment, and to implement

the oil spill response contingency plan for the Columbia River.

SEARCH AND RESCUE PROGRAM READINESS

In fiscal year 2000 the Coast Guard failed to meet its safety goal

of saving at least 85 percent of all mariners in distress—only 82.7

percent were saved, which is the lowest result the Coast Guard has

seen since 1993. The Committee is deeply concerned by this unmet

safety goal and the serious staffing, training, and equipment shortfalls at the Coast Guard’s Search and Rescue stations. In his June

13, 2001 testimony before the Committee, the Department of

Transportation’s Inspector General stated that a ‘‘21 percent decline in the number of experienced station personnel, an aging

small boat fleet that is failing Coast Guard readiness inspections,

and a 225 percent increase in mishaps involving Coast Guard small

boats are indicative of a program with significant problems.’’ The

Inspector General also stated that ‘‘readiness levels at Coast Guard

SAR stations have been deteriorating for more than 20 years’’.

Coast Guard data shows that today, 90 percent of the Coast

Guard’s 188 SAR stations operate with staffing levels so low that

boat crews must work an average of 84 hours of duty weekly to

maintain station readiness. This exceeds the Coast Guard’s own

68-hour work week standard. In his Regional Strategic Assessment

dated May 2001, the Coast Guard’s Pacific Area Commander stated

that, in the Thirteenth Coast Guard District, ‘‘we don’t have

enough personnel to safely man the watch or perform full multi-
21

mission responsibilities... District 13 needs an additional 250

billets to staff our 10 surf stations and our other 4

stations... units are never fully manned with qualified

personnel... the status quo is unsafe, inequitable, reduces readiness and is not sustainable.’’

In addition to staffing shortages, SAR stations are experiencing

critical shortfalls in the number of experienced personnel. As the

chart below shows, since January 1996, the number of senior level

Coast Guard personnel (E–4 through E–9) at SAR stations has decreased by 21 percent while the number of inexperienced Coast

Guard personnel (E–1 through E–3) has increased by 194 percent.

Besides working excessive hours, the dwindling numbers of experienced SAR station personnel are continually burdened with the

requirement to provide ‘‘on-the-job’’ training to an increasing number of inexperienced personnel. Boatswains Mates account for over

60 percent of the coxswains and boat crewmembers assigned to

Coast Guard SAR stations. However, no entry-level training school

currently exists for all active duty Boatswains Mates, even though

20 other Coast Guard enlisted job specialties do receive formal

entry-level training ranging from 4 to 26 weeks in length.

Given these serious staffing and training shortfalls, it is not surprising to see an increase in the number of accidents involving

Coast Guard rescue boats. Coast Guard data shows that, in fiscal

year 2000, there were 130 rescue boat accidents, which represents

a 225 percent increase over the 40 accidents that occurred during

fiscal year 1998. The Coast Guard found that over half of these accidents were caused by navigational and operational errors or poor

judgement, as shown in the following chart.
22

During fiscal year 2000, 84 percent of the rescue boat fleet inspected by the Coast Guard was found ‘‘not ready for sea’’. This

evaluation essentially means that Coast Guard inspectors identified mechanical or structural deficiencies that render the rescue

boats not fully capable of performing SAR missions. The following

table shows the breakdown of Coast Guard rescue boats found ‘‘not

ready for sea’’ based on the Coast Guard’s fiscal year 1999 boatspecific data.

Boat type Average age of

boat (years)

Percentage

of boats

found ‘‘Not

Ready For

Sea’’

47-Foot Motor Lifeboat ......................................................................................... 0 to 4 90

44-Foot Motor Lifeboat ......................................................................................... 28 100

41-Foot Motor Lifeboat ......................................................................................... 18 to 28 99

In addition to standard motor lifeboats and utility boats, SAR

stations maintain non-standard rescue boats, including rigid-hull

inflatable boats, that comprise 53 percent of the boats operated by

SAR station boat crews and execute over 30 percent of SAR missions. Coast Guard data shows that, during the past 3 years, over

50 Coast Guard members either fell overboard or were ejected from

rigid-hull inflatable boats. As recently as March 2001, two Coast

Guard members from Station Niagara lost their lives when their

rigid-hull inflatable boat capsized and ejected its four-member crew

into Lake Ontario. Despite their potential hazards, these nonstandard rescue boats are not subject to formal readiness inspections. In addition, boat coxswains may not have adequate training

on how to safely operate these boats. In July 2000, in response to

a rise in accidents involving these boats, the Coast Guard con-
23

ducted an internal study on non-standard rescue boat operations.

To date, the Coast Guard has made little progress in implementing

the majority of the study’s recommendations.

The Committee is further disturbed to hear reports that small

boat station personnel may not have adequate or enough personal

safety equipment, including survival suits and equipment, to protect themselves fully while performing these dangerous SAR missions.

The Committee has included $8,000,000 above the fiscal year

2002 budget estimate for the Coast Guard to address the serious

staffing, training, and equipment problems in its SAR program.

These funds are in addition to the $5,541,000 in the fiscal year

2002 budget request for SAR system enhancements. Therefore, the

Committee is recommending a total of $13,541,000 for SAR program enhancements for fiscal year 2002. As part of this initiative,

the Committee authorizes up to a total of 450 new positions, including 194 positions that were requested in the fiscal year 2002

budget estimate.

The Committee directs the Commandant to develop and submit

a strategic plan for improving SAR program readiness to the House

and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 3 months after

the date of the enactment of this bill. The Committee expects that

the Coast Guard’s strategic plan will address, at a minimum:

Increasing the staffing levels at SAR stations in order to meet

the Coast Guard’s 68-hour work week standard, including increasing the staffing at Coast Guard surf stations to maintain the Coast

Guard’s two-boat safety standard (two ‘‘Bravo zero’’ ready-to-go

boat crews);

Increasing the staffing levels at SAR command centers to allow

all watchstanders to stand 12-hour vice 24-hour ‘‘live’’ watches;

Increasing the training and experience level of SAR station personnel through targeted retention efforts, revised personnel policies, and expanded training programs; and

Modernizing and improving the quantity and quality of personal

safety equipment, including survival suits and equipment, for all

personnel assigned to SAR and surf stations.

The Committtee has included bill language that directs that the

$13,541,000 in funds provided for fiscal year 2002 shall be used

only for improving staffing, training and experience levels, and personal safety equipment in the SAR program. The bill also directs

the Department of Transportation Inspector General to audit and

certify to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that

the funding provided is being used to supplement rather than supplant the Coast Guard’s level of effort in this area in fiscal year

2001.

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

General Trust Total

Appropriations, 2001 1 ....................................................... $395,000,000 $20,000,000 $415,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ..................................................... 639,367,000 19,956,000 659,323,000

Committee recommendation .............................................. 649,323,000 20,000,000 669,323,000

1 Excludes reduction of $913,000 for the 0.22 percent government-wide rescission pursuant to Public Law 106–554.
24

This appropriation provides for the major acquisition, construction, and improvement of vessels, aircraft, shore units, and aids to

navigation operated and maintained by the Coast Guard. Currently, the Coast Guard has in operation approximately 250 cutters, ranging in size from 65-foot tugs to 399-foot polar icebreakers,

more than 2,000 boats, and an inventory of more than 200 helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. The Coast Guard also operates approximately 600 stations, support and supply centers, communications facilities, and other shore units. The Coast Guard maintains

over 48,000 navigational aids—buoys, fixed aids, lighthouses, and

radio navigational stations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The recommended bill provides $669,323,000 for acquisition, construction, and improvements, including $20,000,000 from the oil

spill liability trust fund. This represents a significant increase of

$254,323,000 (61 percent) above last year’s enacted level and

$10,000,000 more than the budget request.

The following table summarizes the Committee’s programmatic

recommendations:

Fiscal year 2001

enacted 1

Fiscal year 2002

estimate

Committee recommendation

Vessels ..................................................................... $156,450,000 $79,390,000 $79,640,000

Integrated Deepwater Systems Program ................. 42,300,000 338,000,000 325,200,000

Aircraft ..................................................................... 37,650,000 500,000 12,500,000

Other equipment ...................................................... 60,113,000 95,471,000 97,921,000

Shore facilities and aids to navigation .................. 63,336,000 79,262,000 88,862,000

Personnel and related support ................................ 55,151,000 66,700,000 65,200,000

Total ........................................................... 415,000,000 659,323,000 669,323,000

1 Excludes reduction of $913,000 for the 0.22 percent government-wide rescission pursuant to Public Law 106–554.

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

Fiscal year Committee recommendation 2001 enacted 2002 estimate

Vessels:

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

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

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 ........................ ........................

85-Foot fast patrol craft ................................................................... ........................ ........................ 4,650,000

Subtotal Vessels ............................................................................ 156,450,000 79,390,000 79,640,000

Integrated Deepwater Systems program .................................................... 42,300,000 338,000,000 325,200,000

Aircraft:

HH–65A helicopter mission computer replacement .......................... 3,650,000 ........................ ........................
25

Program name

Fiscal year Committee recommendation 2001 enacted 2002 estimate

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 ........................ ........................

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

Aviation parts and support ............................................................... ........................ ........................ 12,000,000

Subtotal Aircraft ............................................................................ 37,650,000 500,000 12,500,000

Other Equipment:

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

Ports and waterways safety system (PAWSS) ................................... 6,100,000 17,600,000 14,400,000

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 and response system modernization .................... 23,800,000 42,000,000 42,000,000

Personnel MIS/Joint 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 3,100,000

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

Readiness management system ........................................................ ........................ 1,675,000 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 6,023,000

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

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

Maritime electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors for cutters and

boats .............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ 5,000,000

Ice detecting radar—Cordova, AK .................................................... ........................ ........................ 650,000

Subtotal Other Equipment ............................................................. 60,113,000 95,471,000 97,921,000

Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation:

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 7,262,000

Housing .............................................................................................. 10,000,000 11,000,000 11,000,000

Waterways aids to navigation projects ............................................. 4,706,000 8,000,000 6,000,000

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 6,300,000

Consolidate warehouse—Coast Guard Yard, MD ............................. ........................ 12,600,000 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 building—ISC Honolulu, HI .......................... ........................ 7,200,000 7,200,000

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

Rebuild ISC Seattle Pier 36—Phase I .............................................. ........................ ........................ 12,600,000

Subtotal Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation ........................ 63,336,000 79,262,000 88,862,000

Personnel and Related Support:

Direct personnel costs ....................................................................... 54,151,000 65,700,000 64,500,000

Core acquisition costs ....................................................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 700,000
26

Program name

Fiscal year Committee recommendation 2001 enacted 2002 estimate

Subtotal Personnel and Related Support ...................................... 55,151,000 66,700,000 65,200,000

Total appropriation ........................................................................ 415,000,000 659,323,000 669,323,000

VESSELS

85-Foot fast patrol craft.—The Committee recognizes that the

Coast Guard currently lacks multi-operational patrol craft capable

of operating at high speeds and achieving sustained success against

drug runners. The Committee recommendation includes $4,650,000

to test and evaluate a currently-developed 85-foot fast patrol craft

that is manufactured in the United States and has a top speed of

40 knots. This appropriation is for purchase and delivery of such

vessel. The Committee expects the Coast Guard to use funding

made available in Operating Expenses to operate and maintain

such vessel.

Polar class icebreaker reliability program.—Due to budget con- straints, the Committee recommends $4,490,000, which is $10,000

less than the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The Committee anticipates that this funding level will be sufficient for this program.

INTEGRATED DEEPWATER SYSTEMS PROGRAM

The Committee has provided $325,200,000 for the Integrated Deepwater Systems (IDS) program, which is $282,900,000 or 669

percent more than the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and

$12,800,000 less than the budget request.

The Integrated Deepwater Systems program represents the largest and most costly procurement in the 35 year history of the Department of Transportation. As such, the Committee is greatly concerned that the program be executed in an efficient and affordable

manner. The Federal Aviation Administration’s delays in modernizing the Nation’s air traffic control system is attributable in part

to the billions of dollars wasted as part of that agency’s failed Advanced Automation System (AAS) procurement. Similarly, the

Coast Guard’s delay in modernizing its deepwater assets, both

ships and aircraft, is attributable in part to the millions of dollars

of cost overruns that were encountered several years ago in the

agency’s effort to extend the service life of just 12 cutters through

the Fleet Renovation and Modernization (FRAM) program. Neither

the Coast Guard nor the taxpayers that depend on it can afford another failed modernization effort.

The Committee does not question the need to modernize the

Coast Guard’s deepwater assets. The service regularly operates

both ships and aircraft well beyond their expected service lives. But

the heavy maintenance costs attributable to operating these older

assets are extraordinarily burdensome on the Coast Guard’s operating budget. They undermine the service’s ability to operate at

maximum capacity and efficiency. In his testimony before the Committee, the Commandant of the Coast Guard stated that ‘‘we need

to break the downward spiral of spending ever increasing amounts

of money on older assets.’’ The Committee agrees with this assessment and has concurred with the Commandant’s request to decom-
27

mission several older aircraft and cutters. This action, though painful, is necessary to free up the resources required to run existing

assets at a sustainable rate and allow the Coast Guard to carry out

all of its missions without the constant drag of punishingly high

maintenance costs. This requested action by the Administration

will also free up resources to modernize the Coast Guard’s aviation

and surface fleet.

Despite the widespread recognition of the need to modernize

these deepwater assets, the Committee remains deeply concerned

about the expected cost and complexity of the deepwater procurement. As stated earlier, the Committee provided almost a 700 percent increase in overall funding for this initiative, but the Committee still fell short of the President’s budget request by almost

$13,000,000 due to budget constraints. For fiscal year 2003 the cost

of this program could grow to as much as $500,000,000 and remain

at that level for the next two decades. At the same time, there are

several other urgent procurements that threaten to push the total

cost of the Coast Guard’s annual acquisition budget to a level in

excess of $1,000,000,000 per year. This funding dynamic is made

clear in the chart below that was presented to the Committee in

testimony by the Department of Transportation’s Inspector General.

It is important to note in the context of this discussion that the

Administration has taken a new position regarding the use of

emergency appropriations to fund ongoing Government activities.

Excluding the Coast Guard’s acquisition funding that was provided

in recent years as an emergency appropriation, the average annual

appropriation over the last decade for Coast Guard acquisitions

was $376,000,000. That amount by itself will not cover the Coast

Guard’s requirements just for the deepwater program in fiscal year

2003. The Inspector General testified that the significant cost associated with the deepwater program holds the potential to ‘‘crowd
28

out’’ other critical acquisitions that will be necessary for the Coast

Guard to perform some of its most important missions, including

Search and Rescue. One such procurement is the urgently needed

modernization of the National Distress and Response System

(NDRS). The Committee is concerned about potential escalating

costs and the affordability of the NDRS modernization program,

which is discussed later in this report.

In order to address these concerns, the Committee has included

bill language that prohibits the obligation of funds for the deepwater system integration contract until the Secretary or Deputy

Secretary of Transportation and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) jointly certify in writing to the House

and Senate Committees on Appropriations that funding for the IDS

program for fiscal years 2003 through 2007, funding for the NDRS

modernization program to allow for full deployment of the system

by 2006, and funding for other essential Search and Rescue procurements are fully funded in the Coast Guard’s Capital Investment Plan and within the OMB’s budgetary projections for the

Coast Guard for those years.

The Committee remains concerned over the inherent risks of the

acquisition strategy that the Coast Guard is pursuing. Reliance on

a single contractor—over a planned period of 20 years—to develop,

construct, and deliver a wide range of ships, aircraft, equipment,

and communications systems presents a significant risk of cost

overruns and schedule delays. In addition, the Committee is concerned that the Coast Guard may not have the management controls in place to control costs or ensure contractor performance. In

light of these concerns, the Committee has included bill language

that prohibits the obligation of funding provided for the Deepwater

program until the Secretary or Deputy Secretary of Transportation

and the Director, Office of Management and Budget jointly approve

a contingency procurement strategy, developed by the Commandant, for the recapitalization of Coast Guard deepwater assets.

Finally, the accompanying bill directs the Coast Guard to identify in their fiscal year 2003 budget justification the following subheadings within the request for the Deepwater procurement: systems integrator, ship construction, aircraft, equipment, and communications and provides that specific assets, quantity requested,

and associated costs be identified within each sub-heading.

AIRCRAFT

Aviation parts and support.—The Committee has included

$12,000,000 for aviation spare parts and support to improve the

readiness of the Coast Guard’s aviation assets. This funding shall

be available for overall support of the Coast Guard’s aviation infrastructure at the discretion of the Commandant.

NATIONAL DISTRESS AND RESPONSE SYSTEM MODERNIZATION

PROGRAM

The Committee recommends the full $42,000,000 requested for

the modernization of the National Distress and Response System

(NDRS), which is effectively the maritime 911 system for mariners

in distress. At present, according to the Department of Transportation Inspector General, there are a total of 88 significant gaps
29

ranging in size from 6 to more than 800 square nautical miles in

which mayday calls are simply not detected by the Coast Guard’s

principle maritime distress radio system. The tragic case of the

Morning Dew, which resulted in the loss of four lives, highlights

the extreme urgency of modernizing the system as soon as possible.

The Inspector General testified to the Committee that the contractor bids for the modernization of the NDRS have been submitted at levels several hundred million dollars over the Coast

Guard’s current cost projection for this program. This only increases the Committee’s concern about the affordability of the

Coast Guard’s overall acquisition program. The Committee is also

concerned that the schedule for modernizing the NDRS may already have begun to slip. The Committee has received communications from the Coast Guard’s Pacific Area Commander articulating

his expectation that the modernized NDRS will be fully deployed

in fiscal year 2005, while the Commandant testified separately to

the Committee that he expects deployment to be in fiscal year

2006. The Committee is further concerned about statements by the

Commandant that the NDRS modernization program may be ‘‘scalable’’. This statement can be taken to imply that the NDRS modernization can be deployed on a slower schedule so that funds remain available for the deepwater procurement. This approach will

not be acceptable to the Committee, which expects the NDRS modernization to be fully deployed no later than fiscal year 2006.

In order to address these concerns, the Committee has included

bill language that prohibits the obligation of funds for the deepwater system integration contract until the Secretary or Deputy

Secretary of Transportation and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) jointly certify in writing to the House

and Senate Committees on Appropriations that funding for the IDS

program for fiscal years 2003 through 2007, funding for the NDRS

modernization program to allow for full deployment of the system

by fiscal year 2006, and funding for other essential Search and Rescue procurements are fully funded in the Coast Guard’s Capital Investment Plan and within the OMB’s budgetary projections for the

Coast Guard for those years.

The Committee believes that the Secretary or Deputy Secretary

of Transportation and the OMB Director should be attendant to the

following milestones in assessing whether the NDRS modernization

will be fully deployed by fiscal year 2006:

Not later than December 31, 2002, the Coast Guard should fill

all voice communications and recording gaps in areas of the U.S.

marine coastline at high risk for vessel accidents or fatalities;

Not later than fiscal year 2003, the Coast Guard should have the

capability to locate distressed vessels by identifying the origin of

the communications signal over 60 percent of the U.S. marine

coastline; and by fiscal year 2006, over 100 percent of the U.S. marine coastline;

Not later than fiscal year 2003, the Coast Guard should have the

capability of sending and receiving data among Coast Guard and

other Federal and State search and rescue assets;

Not later than fiscal year 2003, the Coast Guard should ensure

compatibility of the system with international communications

standards under the Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea over
30

50 percent of the U.S. marine coastline; and by fiscal year 2006,

over 100 percent of the U.S. marine coastline.

Boatracs communications and positions systems.—The Committee

understands that in 1998 the Coast Guard evaluated and reported

on the operational effectiveness of the Boatracs communications

and positioning system. The conclusions from that evaluation and

continued use of the Boatracs system in the Eighth Coast Guard

district clearly indicate the system provides immediate and effective coverage of dead zones in the existing command and control

communications system. Further, this off-the-shelf system has

proven easy to use, secure, and substantially less expensive than

cellular telephone alternatives. The Committee directs the Coast

Guard to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on

Appropriations not later than August 31, 2001 on its strategy regarding the use of this system. The report should explain why no

effort has been initiated to procure, or allow the procurement of,

additional units; install already purchased units; or facilitate the

integration of those current in-service units into current command

and control communications systems.

OTHER EQUIPMENT

Maritime electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors for cutters and

boats.—The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for

the Coast Guard to procure maritime handheld and fixed mounted

electro-optical/infrared (EO/IR) sensors for the Coast Guard’s cutters and patrol boats. In its fiscal year 2002 Capital Investment

Plan, the Coast Guard has identified the procurement of these sensors as a capital investment that supports its maritime safety and

security goals. The addition of these thermal imaging systems will

enable Coast Guard personnel to conduct maritime operations safely and effectively at night and in adverse weather conditions.

Ice detecting radar—Cordova, Alaska.—The Committee recommends $650,000 for the acquisition and installation of an ice detecting radar to increase awareness of hazards to maritime navigation and prevent oil spills in Prince William Sound. The Committee

directs the Coast Guard to coordinate with the local community to

procure and site this equipment expeditiously.

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

recommends $14,400,000, a reduction of $3,200,000 below the

budget estimate but $8,300,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The Committee anticipates that this funding level will

be sufficient to implement and upgrade vessel traffic service systems in select ports. The Committee encourages the Coast Guard

to expand this maritime safety initiative to include additional

ports.

SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION

Rebuild ISC Seattle Pier 36—Phase I.—The Committee recommendation includes $12,600,000 for costs associated with repairing and rebuilding the Coast Guard’s Integrated Support Center at

Pier 36 in Seattle. The Committee understands that discussions

are underway that could result in the Coast Guard moving its activities from Pier 36 to an alternative site within the City of Se-
31

attle. As such, the funds provided may be used either to repair and

rebuild the existing facility or to cover costs associated with a move

to an alternative site, pending the outcome of these discussions.

Waterways aids to navigation projects.—The Committee recommends $6,000,000, a reduction of $2,000,000 below the budget

estimate, due to budget constraints. Within the funds provided, the

Committee directs $250,000 to be available only for the construction and installation of two aids to navigation on the Burlington,

Vermont Breakwater to replace the existing dated equipment.

Survey and design—shore projects.—The Committee recommends

$7,000,000, the same as the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The reduction of $1,000,000 is due to budget constraints.

BILL LANGUAGE

Capital investment plan.—The bill maintains the requirement for

the Coast Guard to submit a 5-year capital investment plan with

initial submission of the President’s budget request. This 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 only

for the national distress and response system modernization program.

Rescissions.—The bill rescinds a total of $8,700,000 of Coast

Guard acquisition, construction, and improvements appropriations

made available in Public Laws 105–277, 106–69, and 106–346 as

shown below:

Public Law No. Project title Amount rescinded

Public Law 105–277 ...................... HH–65A Helo Kapton Wiring ................................................................... $1,526,000

Public Law 106–69 ........................ HH–65A Helo Kapton Wiring ................................................................... 2,856,000

Public Law 106–69 ........................ HU–25 Reengineering ............................................................................. 3,468,000

Public Law 106–346 ...................... PC–170 ................................................................................................... 850,000

Total .................................. ................................................................................................................. 8,700,000

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $16,700,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 16,927,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 16,927,000

1Excludes reduction of $37,000 for the 0.22 percent government-wide rescission pursuant to

Public Law 106–554.

The Environmental Compliance and Restoration account provides

funds to address environmental problems at former and current

Coast Guard units as required by applicable Federal, State, and

local environmental laws and regulations. Planned expenditures for

these funds include major upgrades to petroleum and regulatedsubstance storage tanks, restoration of contaminated ground water

and soils, remediation efforts at hazardous substance disposal sites,

and initial site surveys and actions necessary to bring Coast Guard

shore facilities and vessels into compliance with environmental

laws and regulations.
32

The recommended bill provides $16,927,000 for environmental

compliance and restoration. The recommendation is the same as

the budget request and $227,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.

ALTERATION OF BRIDGES

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $15,500,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 15,466,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 15,466,000

1 Excludes reduction of $34,000 for the 0.22 percent government-wide rescission pursuant to

Public Law 106–554.

The ‘‘Alteration of bridges’’ appropriation provides funds for the

Coast Guard’s share of the cost of altering or removing bridges obstructive to navigation. Under the provisions of the Truman-Hobbs

Act of June 21, 1940, as amended (33 U.S.C. 511 et seq.), the Coast

Guard, as the Federal Government’s agent, is required to share

with owners the cost of altering railroad and publicly owned highway bridges which obstruct the free movement of navigation on

navigable waters of the United States in accordance with the formula established in 33 U.S.C. 516. Alteration of obstructive highway bridges is eligible for funding from the Federal-Aid Highways

program.

The Committee has provided an appropriation from the highway

trust fund of $15,466,000 for the alteration of bridges, which is the

same as the budget request.

The Committee recommendation is to be distributed as follows:

Committee

recommendation

Fourteen Mile Bridge, Mobile, AL ........................................................ $5,766,000

Florida Avenue Railroad/Highway Bridge, New Orleans, LA ............ 3,500,000

John F. Limehouse Bridge in Charleston, SC ..................................... 2,200,000

Chelsea Street Bridge, Boston, MA ...................................................... 2,000,000

EJ&E Railroad Bridge, Morris, IL ....................................................... 2,000,000

Total ............................................................................................. 15,466,000

EJ&E Railroad Bridge, Morris, Illinois.—The Committee is concerned about the alteration of the EJ&E railroad bridge near Morris, Illinois. To date, the Committee has provided $5,000,000 for

this important bridge project in fiscal years 2000 and 2001. It is

the Committee’s understanding that design and engineering work

has begun and should be completed in February 2002. In fiscal

year 2002, the Committee provides $2,000,000 for this bridge

project and expects construction to commence in fiscal year 2002.

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

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

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

Commission’s activities. The Committee encourages the Millennium

Port Commission to complete its analysis and release its final site

selection study, with recommendations for a Millennium Port, by

January 1, 2002.
33

RETIRED PAY

Appropriations, 2001 (mandatory) ....................................................... $778,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 (mandatory) ..................................................... 876,346,000

Committee recommendation (mandatory) ........................................... 876,346,000

The ‘‘Retired pay’’ appropriation provides for retired pay of military personnel of the Coast Guard and Coast Guard Reserve, members of the former Lighthouse Service, and for annuities payable to

beneficiaries of retired military personnel under the retired serviceman’s family protection plan (10 U.S.C. 1431–1446) and survivor

benefit plan (10 U.S.C. 1447–1455), payments for career status bonuses under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal

Year 2000, and for payments for medical care of retired personnel

and their dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act. The

average number of personnel on the retired rolls is estimated to be

34,311 in fiscal year 2002, as compared with an estimated 33,499

in fiscal year 2001 and 32,684 in fiscal year 2000. The recommended bill provides $876,346,000, the same as the budget estimate and $98,346,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.

RESERVE TRAINING

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $80,375,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 83,194,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 83,194,000

1 Excludes reduction of $177,000 for the 0.22 percent government-wide rescission pursuant

Public Law 106–554.

Under the provisions of 14 U.S.C. 145, the Secretary of Transportation is required to adequately support the development and training of a Reserve force to ensure that the Coast Guard will be sufficiently organized, manned, and equipped to fully perform its wartime missions. The purpose of the Reserve training program is to

provide trained units and qualified persons for active duty in the

Coast Guard in time of war or national emergency, or at such other

times as the national security requires. Coast Guard reservists

must also train for mobilization assignments that are unique to the

Coast Guard in times of war, such as port security operations associated with the Coast Guard’s Maritime Defense Zone [MDZ] mission and include deployable port security units.

The recommended bill includes $83,194,000 for reserve training.

This is the same as the budget request and $2,819,000 (3.5 percent)

more than last year’s enacted level. The Committee recommendation provides funds to fully train, support, and sustain a Selected

Reserve level of 8,000. The Committee has included $25,800,000 as

the limitation on allowable reimbursements of the Coast Guard operating expenses appropriation from the Coast Guard Reserve

training appropriation.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

General Trust Total

Appropriations, 2001 1 ....................................................... $17,820,000 $3,500,000 $21,320,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ..................................................... 18,230,000 3,492,000 21,722,000

Committee recommendation .............................................. 18,230,000 3,492,000 21,722,000

1 Excludes reduction of $47,000 for the 0.22 percent governement-wide rescission pursuant to Public Law 106–554.
34

The Coast Guard’s Research and Development Program seeks to

improve the tools and techniques with which Coast Guard carries

out its varied operational missions and to increase the knowledge

base upon which it depends to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities. The recommended bill provides a funding level of $21,722,000 for

research and development projects, which is consistent with the

budget request. Of this amount $3,492,000 is to be derived from

the oil spill liability trust fund. This recommendation is consistent

with the budget request.

Columbia River Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Initiative

(CRANSI) Center.—The Committee is concerned about the threat

that invasive, nonindigenous plants and animals pose to United

States waterways and the economy. Within the funds provided, the

Committee provides $500,000 for the Columbia River Aquatic Nonindigenous Species Initiative (CRANSI) Center at Portland State

University to support surveys of nonindigenous aquatic species in

the Columbia River.

Environmentally sound synthetic lubricants evaluation.—The

Committee directs the Coast Guard to evaluate Planet Green hydraulic fluid and Eagle G–4 synthetic engine lubricant for application on its ships. The Committee understands that less environmentally disruptive lubricants and fluids may cost slightly more

initially, but is informed that lower life-cycle costs, improved efficiency, and maintenance benefits may justify the higher initial investment. The Coast Guard is directed to evaluate the applicability

of these environmentally sound synthetic lubricants and the life

cycle cost and performance considerations of introducing this class

of products to the operation of Coast Guard vessels. The Committee

anticipates the results of this evaluation to be completed in time

for these products to be integrated into the fiscal year 2003 Coast

Guard justification.

Demonstration and evaluation of engineered wood composites.— The Committee is aware of research on engineered wood composites sponsored by the U.S. Navy at the University of Maine Advanced Engineered Wood Composites Center. Engineered wood

composites are designed to reduce the cost of maintenance and extend the useful life of waterfront structures. Within the funds provided, the Committee provides $1,000,000 to support the demonstration and evaluation of engineered wood composites at Coast

Guard facilities.

BOAT SAFETY

(AQUATIC RESOURCES TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2001 (mandatory) ....................................................... $64,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 (mandatory) ..................................................... 64,000,000

Committee recommendation (mandatory) ........................................... 64,000,000

This account provides financial assistance for a coordinated National Recreational Boating Safety Program for the several States.

Title 46, United States Code, section 13106, establishes a ‘‘Boat

safety’’ account from which the Secretary may allocate and distribute matching funds to assist in the development, administration, and financing of qualifying State programs. The ‘‘Boat safety’’

account consists of amounts transferred from the highway trust
35

fund which are derived from the motorboat fuel tax (18.4 cents per

gallon).

The Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century provides

$64,000,000 of mandatory funding from the ‘‘Aquatic Resources

Trust fund’’ annually for this program. Of this amount, $59,000,000

is provided for grants to States and $5,000,000 for Coast Guard administration. The President’s budget requests no discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2002.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

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

bill retains a general provision (sec. 312) that would prohibit funds

to plan, finalize, or implement regulations that would establish a

vessel traffic safety fairway less than 5 miles wide between the

Santa Barbara traffic separation scheme and the San Francisco

traffic separation scheme. On April 27, 1989, the Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would narrow the originally proposed 5-mile-wide fairway to two 1-mile-wide fairways

separated by a 2-mile-wide area where off-shore 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

2-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.

Quarterly acquisition reports.—The bill retains a general provision (sec. 341) requiring that the Coast Guard submit a quarterly

report regarding the status of major acquisition programs.

Coast Guard Yard.—The Committee recognizes the Coast Guard

Yard at Curtis Bay, Maryland is a critical component of the Coast

Guard’s core logistics capability that directly supports fleet readiness. The Committee further recognizes that the Yard has been a

vital part of the Coast Guard’s readiness infrastructure for more

than 100 years and believes that sufficient industrial work should

be assigned to the Yard to maintain this capability. Therefore, the

Committee directs the Secretary of Transportation to submit a 5-

year business plan for the Coast Guard Yard to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 18 months after the date

of the enactment of this bill.

The bill includes a general provision (sec. 332) that amends section 648 of title 14 of the U.S. Code. This bill language affords the

Coast Guard Yard and other Coast Guard specialized facilities to

qualify as components of the Department of Defense for competition and workload assignment purposes and to enter into publicprivate partnerships for the performance of work.

The bill also includes a general provision (sec. 328) requiring the

Commandant of the Coast Guard to maintain an onboard staffing

level at the Coast Guard Yard of not less than 530 full time equivalent civilian employees.
36

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2002 PROGRAM

The Federal Aviation Administration traces its origins to the Air

Commerce Act of 1926, but more recently to the Federal Aviation

Act of 1958 which established the independent Federal Aviation

Agency from functions which had resided in the Airways Modernization Board, the Civil Aeronautics Administration, and parts

of the Civil Aeronautics Board. FAA became an administration of

the Department of Transportation on April 1, 1967, pursuant to the

Department of Transportation Act (October 15, 1966).

The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal year

2002 amounts to $13,325,808,000, $38,027,000 more than the

President’s budget request. The following table summarizes the

Committee’s recommendations:

[In thousands of dollars]

Program

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2001 enacted 1 2002 budget

estimate

Operations ................................................................... 6,544,235 6,886,000 6,916,000

General fund appropriation ................................ 2 2,129,366 1,108,781 1,138,781

Trust fund appropriation .................................... 4,414,869 5,777,219 5,777,219

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

Research, engineering, and development ................... 187,000 187,781 195,808

Airport improvement program ..................................... 3,200,500 3,300,000 3,300,000

Total available budget resources .................. 12,588,500 13,287,781 13,325,808

1 Includes fiscal year 2001 rescissions pursuant to Public Law 106–554. 2 Does not reflect transfer of $14,000,000 to the Essential Air Service program.

OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $6,544,235,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 6,886,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,916,000,000

1Does not reflect rescissions pursuant to Public Law 106–554.

FAA’s ‘‘Operations’’ appropriation provides funds for the operation, maintenance, communications, and logistic support of the air

traffic control and navigation systems and activities. It also covers

the administration and management of the regulatory, commercial

space, medical, engineering, and development programs.

The bill includes $6,916,000,000 for the operations activities of

the Federal Aviation Administration from the airport and airway

trust fund. The balance of the operations appropriation will come

from the general fund.

As in past years, FAA is directed to report immediately to the

Committees on Appropriations in the event resources are insufficient to operate a safe and effective air traffic control system.

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate:
37

[In thousands of dollars]

2001 program level 1 2002 budget

estimate

Committee

recommendations

Air traffic services ......................................... 5,160,833 5,447,421 5,447,421

Aviation regulation and certification ............ 693,450 744,744 783,994

Civil aviation security ................................... 138,995 150,154 150,154

Research and acquisitions ............................ 189,570 196,674 196,674

Commercial space transportation ................. 11,974 14,706 14,456

Regional coordination .................................... 99,128 90,893 90,893

Human resources ........................................... 54,743 74,516 74,516

Financial services .......................................... 48,337 50,684 50,684

Staff offices ................................................... 104,807 116,208 116,208

Essential air service ...................................... 14,000 ( 2 ) ( 3 )

Account-wide adjustments ............................ .............................. ............................... ¥9,000

Total ................................................. 6,515,838 6,886,000 6,916,000

1 Does not reflect rescissions pursuant to Public Law 106–554. 2 Proposes that the Essential air service (EAS) payment be paid out of the Airport Improvement Program in fiscal year

2002. 3 Proposes that up to $10,000,000 of funds provided for the Airport Improvement Program may be used for the Essential Air Service (EAS) program.

Controller Staffing.—The President’s budget requests funding to

hire 600 additional air traffic controllers. This request is consistent

with the labor agreement that the FAA negotiated with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. These additional controllers will allow the FAA to address increased traffic demand as well

as assist in the implementation of the agency’s new choke point

sectors. The Committee approves the agency’s request for 300

FTE’s and 600 FTP’s and includes $23,814,000 for these additional

air traffic controllers. The Committee expects the FAA to move expeditiously in filling these important positions.

Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center.—The northeastern

corridor of the Nation’s airspace is one of the busiest air traffic

areas in the country. As air traffic continues to increase in the

northeast, it is important that the FAA keep air traffic controller

staffing at an appropriate level to manage the traffic. The controller workforce at the Washington Air Route Traffic Control Center is reportedly below the level that was determined in a staffing

study that was conducted by the FAA. The Committee expects the

Administrator to review the staffing levels at the Washington Air

Route Traffic Control Center while taking into consideration the

number of managers and staff that are eligible to retire. Once the

review is completed, the Committee further expects the Administrator to take the appropriate steps to fill the vacancies as soon as

possible.

Airway Facility technician levels.—The Committee is concerned

over reports that there are Airway Facility technician positions

that are authorized but remain vacant. The Committee is also concerned that the on-board strength of technicians is at dangerously

low levels. The Committee expects the Administrator to review the

technician staffing levels and to aggressively recruit to fill any vacancies as soon as possible.

Contract tower program.—The Committee continues to support

the contract tower program and the cost-sharing program as a costeffective way to enhance air traffic safety at smaller airports. The
38

Committee’s recommendation includes $70,500,000 to fund the existing contract tower program, the remaining eligible non-Federal

towers not currently operated by the FAA, and other non-towered

airports eligible for the program. In addition to these resources,

$6,000,000 is provided for the contract tower cost-sharing program.

The Committee has been informed that the St. Cloud, Minnesota

Airport and the Tuscaloosa Airport qualify for inclusion in the contract tower cost-sharing program and the Committee recommendation includes funding for their participation.

National airspace redesign.—Of the funds appropriated for this activity, $12,500,000 shall be for the NY/NJ Airspace Redesign effort and shall not be reprogrammed by the FAA for other activities,

including airspace redesign activities outside the NY/NJ metro

area.

Safety Personnel.—The Committee has approved 221 full time positions (FTPs) and 110.5 full time equivalent staff years (FTEs) for

new Flight Standards, Aircraft Certification and Aviation Medical

personnel. Following the ValuJet crash in 1996, the FAA Administrator tasked the agency’s Deputy Administrator to lead a 90-day

review of the FAA’s safety oversight functions. The report generated by the agency’s review team concluded that the FAA needed

to improve its surveillance of newly certificated air carriers and increase its aviation inspector workforce to 3,297. In addition, the

final report of National Civil Aviation Review Commission (the

‘‘Mineta Commission’’) in December, 1997 assumed that the FAA

would exceed the inspector workforce levels that were established

following the ValuJet crash.

The Committee notes that even with the funds provided in the

fiscal year 2000 supplemental, the safety inspector workforce remains well below the employment levels recommended and

achieved following the ValuJet crash. At the same time, the Department of Transportation’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan has

set an aggressive goal of an 80 percent reduction in the rate of

fatal accidents in commercial aviation. Since the 90-day review and

Mineta Commission reports, the Committee has been making

steady progress toward growing the inspector workforce to reach

the level of 3,297. However, the President’s budget proposed freezing the number of inspectors at 3,229. The Committee believes that

the safety inspection workforce plays a critical role in the FAA’s efforts to meet its stated safety goals. The Committee expects the

FAA to utilize the increased funding to reach the inspector level of

3,299. The Committee also expects the Administrator to aggressively recruit to achieve this level as soon as possible. The Committee includes $12,200,000 for these safety personnel.

Aircraft certification activities.—The Committee has provided additional resources for continued operational safety monitoring activities that are necessary as more aircraft and aircraft components

are entered into service. Specifically, the Committee intends the

funds to support safety enhancement activities resulting from accident investigations; the evaluation of new inspection techniques

that require engineering support; the airworthiness certification reviews of new aircraft and components; and, the development and

implementation of improved, data driven, and systemic approaches

to monitoring the continued safety performance of certificated prod-
39

ucts. The Committee includes $3,600,000 for these aircraft certification activities which represents 52 FTP’s and 26 additional

FTE’s. As the FAA begins to hire staff for these activities, the Committee requests that the Administrator review the staffing levels in

the Northwest Mountain region. The Committee is concerned about

reports that the Aircraft Certification Office in Seattle is understaffed and expects that the agency will take immediate corrective

steps to fill any critical certification-related vacancies.

Safer Skies Agenda.—In 1998, the FAA unveiled its Safer Skies

Agenda which was designed to develop, implement and monitor

intervention strategies in nine accident cause categories. The agenda includes commercial aviation, general aviation and cabin safety

initiatives. The Committee has provided $22,700,000 more than the

President’s request to enhance and expedite this initiative. The

Committee includes resources for the development of operational

and airworthiness criteria and guidance for instrument approach

procedures; pilot training guidelines for advanced maneuvers; enhanced crew resource management training to include flight crew

member situational awareness and use of automation to mitigate

loss of control accidents. The Committee recognizes that severe

weather conditions contribute heavily to aviation delays and if undetected, can present a significant safety risk. The Committee expects the FAA to expedite the curriculum development and implementation of advanced weather training for air traffic controllers

and flight service specialists. The Committee also includes resources to implement the installation of the Aviation Digital Data

System and to study the review facts surrounding aeronautical decision making. In addition, resources are included to open up additional Operational and Supportability Implementation System

(OASIS) sites and to provide scenario-based weather training and

testing. The Committee expects the FAA to provide a progress report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committee by February 1, 2002, on the major Safer Skies initiatives, especially in the

area of cabin safety. The Committee includes 28 additional FTP’s

and 14 additional FTE’s for these activities.

Human Intervention and Motivation Study.—Since 1974, the

Human Intervention and Motivation Study (HIMS) has served as

a comprehensive education and training program for alcohol and

drug abuse prevention in the air transportation workplace. One of

the successful components of the HIMS program has been its emphasis on peer identification and intervention. The 90 percent long

term recovery rate is further evidence of the program’s effectiveness. The Committee provides $500,000 out of available funds to

continue the Human Intervention and Motivation Study.

Drug and Alcohol Validity Testing Study.—The Department of

Transportation (DOT) revised its drug and alcohol regulations in

December, 2000. The regulations address the use of validity testing

which is designed to deter and detect attempts to adulterate or

substitute specimens. The Committee is concerned over reports

that some categories of transportation employees could inadvertently fail to meet the current validity standards due to treatments

for certain health related issues, working conditions or dietary habits. The Committee is aware that the Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS) is in the process of finalizing its rules on
40

validity testing standards. The Committee is also aware that once

the HHS rule is finalized that the DOT will publish a notice requiring validity testing in the transportation industry. The Committee

recommendation provides $250,000 for a comprehensive study of

validity testing to ensure the highest level of accuracy.

Airport Security Improvements.—With the passage last year of

the Airport Security Improvement Act of 2000, the FAA is required

to implement a fingerprint based criminal history background

check at all commercial service airports within 24 months for all

employees with unescorted privileges to secure airport areas. This

act will significantly increase the number of aviation related employees that will be subject to fingerprint based criminal history

checks from a few thousand to 100,000 or more annually for an indefinite period. Given that consideration and the importance of

processing electronic fingerprints in a timely fashion to both

strengthen airport security and prevent an unnecessary burden on

potential employees, the Committee urges the FAA to work cooperatively with airports and the aviation industry to develop and implement a streamlined electronic process for transmitting fingerprints from airports and airlines directly to the FBI.

Medallion Program.—The Committee recommendation provides $3,000,000 for the government and industry cooperative program to

improve rural air safety in Alaska. This program recognizes that

aviation safety is the responsibility of all in the aviation industry

as well as the regulatory responsibility of the FAA. This program

focuses the effort to improve rural aviation safety in Alaska beyond

the regulatory environment and provides proactive tools for industry participants to prevent accidents and to improve and measure

safety management by air carriers.

Personnel Reform.—In April 1996, at the request of the Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration,

Congress directed the FAA to develop its own personnel and compensation systems to give the agency more flexibility in hiring,

training, compensating and retaining a highly technical and experienced workforce. Under congressional mandate and in consultation

with experts in personnel management, FAA commenced negotiating with its employees. Four employee groups have completed negotiations with FAA thus far. Three of these negotiated agreements, two with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association

and one with the Professional Airways Systems Specialists, were

implemented immediately upon ratification by the employees. The

fourth agreement, between the American Federation of State,

County, and Municipal Employees and the FAA, covering employees in FAA’s headquarters, was ratified in late February 2001 but

has not been implemented by the agency. The Committee is concerned that the failure to implement this contract has resulted in

lost opportunities to obtain important productivity gains and a deterioration in the relationship between the agency and its employees. The Committee expects the agency to implement the ratified

agreement immediately so that improved productivity can be

achieved and employee morale can be improved.

Alien Species Action Plan (ASAP).—The Committee provides

$3,000,000 out of available funds for implementation of the Alien

Species Action Plan (ASAP) which was adopted by the Federal
41

Aviation Administration as part of its August 26, 1998 Record of

Decision approving certain improvements at Kahului Airport on

the Island of Maui. These funds shall be used to reimburse the

State of Hawaii for costs arising from the requirements of the

ASAP mandated by the FAA.

Air Traffic Services Subcommittee.—Section 302(c) of the Wendell

H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century

established the Air Traffic Services Subcommittee. The Subcommittee is responsible for oversight of the administration, management, conduct, direction and supervision of the air traffic control system. In addition, the Subcommittee is expected to review

and approve the strategic plan for the air traffic control system and

all procurements of air traffic control equipment in excess of

$100,000,000. While the Subcommittee members were appointed in

December, 2000, the Subcommittee lacks specific resources to hire

the staff necessary to support the Subcommittee’s mission. Within

the funds provided, the Committee includes $862,000 for the necessary staff and operational costs.

Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS).—Last summer, the

Administrator appointed an Independent Review Board to review

and provide recommendations on the Wide Area Augmentation

System (WAAS). The Review Board’s final report in January found

that the WAAS concept is sound and that the system’s value will

continue to grow once it is fully operational. The Board’s report included recommendations for near term, mid-term and long-term actions that the FAA should take in order to achieve the maximum

capability from WAAS. Within the funds provided, the Committee

includes $5,000,000 to increase the number of non-precision GPS

instrument approaches developed and published for airports that

are not Part 139 certificated and to develop GPS routes to help

supplement the current airway route system. These routes will

allow general aviation pilots to safely transition through congested

and special use airspace, to avoid weather conditions that may

threaten flight safety and will permit increased access to airports

currently inaccessible by instrument flight.

Account-wide adjustments.—The Committee recommends reductions totaling $9,000,000 in the following areas: travel and transportation of persons; communications, utilities, and miscellaneous

charges; and, supplies and materials. These reductions are intended to maintain spending in these areas at the fiscal year 2001

levels and are necessary due to budget constraints.

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $2,656,765,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 2,914,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,914,000,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $5,844,883 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

Under the ‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ appropriation, safety, capacity and efficiency of the Federal airway system are improved by

the procurement and installation of new equipment and the construction and modernization of facilities to keep pace with aeronautical activity and in accordance with the Federal Aviation Ad-
42

ministration’s comprehensive capital investment plan [CIP], formerly called the national airspace system [NAS] plan.

The Federal Aviation Administration’s most recent estimate is

that it will spend approximately $41,000,000,000 on the Air Traffic

Control Modernization effort from 1981 through 2004. The bill includes an appropriation of $2,914,000,000 for the facilities and equipment of the Federal Aviation Administration. This

appropriation represents an increase of 10 percent above the level

provided for fiscal year 2001. The bill does not provide the advanced appropriations requested by the administration. The Committee’s recommended distributions of the funds for each of the

major accounts are as follows:

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

Program name Fiscal year

2001 enacted

Fiscal year

2002 estimate

Committee recommendation

ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION

ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPING ................... $56,480,000 $36,634,000 $36,834,000

SAFE FLIGHT 21 .................................................................................... 35,000,000 26,500,000 39,300,000

SUBTOTAL—ADV DEV/PROTOTYPING ....................................... 91,480,000 63,134,000 76,134,000

AVIATION WEATHER SERVICES IMPROVEMENTS .................................... 18,400,000 .......................... ..........................

EN ROUTE AUTOMATION ........................................................................ 14,600,000 72,200,000 46,200,000

OCEANIC AUTOMATION SYSTEM ............................................................ 51,970,000 84,400,000 84,400,000

AERONAUTICAL DATA LINK (ADL) APPLICATIONS .................................. 30,200,000 35,813,200 35,813,200

NEXT GENERATION VHF A/G COMMUNICATION SYSTEM ....................... 12,300,000 15,950,000 15,950,000

FREE FLIGHT PHASE ONE ...................................................................... 177,800,000 122,570,000 122,570,000

FREE FLIGHT PHASE TWO ...................................................................... 15,000,000 114,900,000 69,900,000

SUBTOTAL—EN ROUTE PROGRAMS ........................................ 320,270,000 445,833,200 374,833,200

TERMINAL AUTOMATION (STARS) .......................................................... 117,000,000 104,700,000 104,700,000

LOCAL AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM FOR GPS (LAAS) ....................... 37,000,000 16,660,000 16,660,000

WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM (WAAS) ....................................... 74,800,000 49,000,000 49,000,000

SUBTOTAL—LANDING/NAVAIDS ............................................... 111,800,000 65,660,000 65,660,000

NAS IMPROVEMENT OF SYSTEM SUPPORT LABORATORY ..................... 2,162,000 2,300,000 2,300,000

TECHNICAL CENTER FACILITIES ............................................................ 8,795,000 11,000,000 11,000,000

TECHNICAL CENTER INFRASTRUCTURE SUSTAINMENT ......................... 2,726,000 2,900,000 2,900,000

SUBTOTAL, RDT&E EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES ..................... 13,683,000 16,200,000 16,200,000

TOTAL ACTIVITY 1 .................................................................... 654,233,000 695,527,200 637,527,200

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

EN ROUTE AUTOMATION ........................................................................ 122,200,000 162,763,000 155,863,000

NEXT GENERATION WEATHER RADAR (NEXRAD) ................................... 4,100,000 6,300,000 6,300,000

AIR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT .............................................. 940,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

WEATHER AND RADAR PROCESSOR (WARP) ......................................... 20,000,000 24,171,000 24,171,000

AERONAUTICAL DATA LINK (ADL) APPLICATIONS .................................. 1,200,000 2,300,000 2,300,000

ARTCC BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS/PLANT IMPROVEMENTS ................... 58,950,000 44,000,000 44,000,000

VOICE SWITCHING AND CONTROL SYSTEM (VSCS) ............................... 2,700,000 13,100,000 16,000,000

AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT ................................................................... 25,944,000 43,300,000 49,300,000

CRITICAL COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT ................................................. 1,880,000 1,900,000 1,900,000

AIR/GROUND COMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURE ................................ 16,074,000 24,400,000 30,700,000

VOLCANO MONITOR ............................................................................... 2,000,000 .......................... 2,000,000

ATC BEACON INTERROGATOR (ATCBI) REPLACEMENT .......................... 75,612,000 65,927,500 66,412,500

ATC EN ROUTE RADAR FACILITIES ........................................................ 2,844,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
43

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued

Program name Fiscal year

2001 enacted

Fiscal year

2002 estimate

Committee recommendation

EN ROUTE COMMS AND CONTROL FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT ............. 7,631,000 1,540,280 1,540,280

AVIATION WEATHER SERVICES IMPROVEMENTS .................................... 8,218,000 15,720,000 22,520,000

AVIATION WEATHER SERVICES IMPROVEMENTS—CORRIDOR INFORMATION WEATHER SYSTEM (CIWS) ................................................... .......................... .......................... 5,000,000

FAA TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE (FTI) ............................ 29,400,000 39,000,000 39,000,000

NATIONWIDE DIFFERENTIAL GPS ........................................................... 6,000,000 .......................... ..........................

NEXT GENERATION VHF AIR-GROUND COMMS SYSTEM (NEXCOMM) ... .......................... 19,000,000 19,000,000

GUAM CERAP—RELOCATE .................................................................... .......................... 6,400,000 6,400,000

OCEANIC AUTOMATION SYSTEM ............................................................ .......................... 3,700,000 3,700,000

SUBTOTAL—EN ROUTE PROGRAMS ........................................ 385,693,000 477,521,780 500,106,780

AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT (ASDE) ............................. 4,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000

AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT (ASDE–X) ......................... 8,400,000 24,800,000 24,800,000

TERMINAL DOPPLER WEATHER RADAR (TDWR)—PROVIDE .................. 5,100,000 3,000,000 3,000,000

TERMINAL AUTOMATION ........................................................................ 75,550,000 98,500,000 87,500,000

TERMINAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES REPLACEMENT .............. 145,492,606 100,700,000 117,700,000

CONTROL TOWER/TRACON FACILITIES—IMPROVE ................................ 41,759,672 54,558,059 57,558,059

TERMINAL VOICE SWITCH REPLACEMENT (TVSR)/ETVS ........................ 14,000,000 11,947,500 21,947,500

EMPLOYEE SAFETY/OSHA AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE STDS ... 28,400,000 28,400,000 28,400,000

HOUSTON AREA AIR TRAFFIC SYSTEM .................................................. 12,000,000 11,000,000 11,000,000

NEW AUSTIN AIRPORT AT BERGSTROM ................................................. 2,500,000 .......................... ..........................

POTOMAC METROPLEX .......................................................................... 25,800,000 6,300,000 6,300,000

NORTHERN CALIFORNIA METROPLEX .................................................... 6,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000

ATLANTA METROPLEX ............................................................................ 3,400,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

NAS INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NIMS) ......................... 13,100,000 30,325,100 18,000,000

AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR (ASR–9) ............................................. 11,122,000 12,800,000 22,800,000

AIRPORT MOVEMENT AREA SAFETY SYSTEM (AMASS) .......................... 20,650,000 12,627,500 13,127,500

VOICE RECORDER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM ........................................ 3,632,000 3,600,000 3,600,000

TERMINAL DIGITAL RADAR (ASR–11) .................................................... 69,690,000 156,377,500 108,530,600

WEATHER SYSTEMS PROCESSOR .......................................................... 22,400,000 3,927,500 3,927,500

DOD/FAA ATC FACILITIES TRANSFER ..................................................... 2,600,000 1,100,000 2,800,000

PRECISION RUNWAY MONITORS ............................................................ 2,000,000 3,927,500 3,927,500

TERMINAL RADAR (ASR)—IMPROVE ..................................................... 3,233,000 3,837,500 3,837,500

TERMINAL COMMUNICATIONS IMPROVEMENTS ..................................... 1,550,700 936,700 936,700

MODE S—PROVIDE ............................................................................... 1,974,000 2,100,000 2,100,000

TERMINAL APPLIED ENGINEERING ......................................................... 6,700,000 6,500,000 6,500,000

SUBTOTAL—TERMINAL PROGRAMS ......................................... 531,053,978 588,264,859 559,292,859

AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVING SYSTEM (ASOS) ............................. 11,500,000 12,300,000 13,280,000

OASIS ..................................................................................................... 23,100,000 33,943,000 33,943,000

WEATHER MESSAGE SWITCHING CENTER REPLACEMENT ..................... 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000

FLIGHT SERVICE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT .......................................... 1,277,500 1,202,100 1,202,100

FLIGHT SERVICE STATION SWITCH MODERNIZATION ............................. 6,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000

FLIGHT SERVICE STATION MODERNIZATION .......................................... 4,000,000 4,700,000 4,700,000

SUBTOTAL—FLIGHT SERVICE PROGRAMS ............................... 48,377,500 64,645,100 65,625,100

VOR ....................................................................................................... 2,632,000 2,000,000 2,000,000

INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS)—ESTABLISH/UPGRADE .............. 85,000,000 18,753,000 30,753,000

ILS—REPLACE MARK 1A, 1B, AND 1C ................................................. 1,000,000 .......................... ..........................

TRANSPONDER LANDING SYSTEM (TLS) ................................................ 3,000,000 .......................... 6,000,000

LOW LEVEL WINDSHEAR ALERT SYSTEM (LLWAS) ................................ 5,734,000 1,533,000 1,533,000

RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR) ............................................................. 8,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000

NDB SUSTAIN ........................................................................................ 940,000 1,013,000 1,013,000

NAVIGATIONAL AND LANDING AIDS—IMPROVE ..................................... 2,955,922 2,525,361 2,525,361

ILS—REPLACE GRN–27 ........................................................................ 1,000,000 .......................... ..........................

APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT (ALSIP) .......................... 30,000,000 5,367,000 33,331,000

PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDICATORS (PAPI) ................................. 6,000,000 13,500,000 13,500,000

DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (DME) ........................................... 1,428,000 2,800,000 4,800,000

VISUAL NAVAIDS .................................................................................... 2,820,000 3,000,000 3,000,000

GULF OF MEXICO OFFSHORE PROGRAM ............................................... 1,900,000 6,900,000 6,900,000
44

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued

Program name Fiscal year

2001 enacted

Fiscal year

2002 estimate

Committee recommendation

LORAN-C UPGRADE/MODERNIZATION .................................................... 25,000,000 13,000,000 21,000,000

WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM (WAAS) FOR GPS ........................ .......................... 26,900,000 26,900,000

LOCAL AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM (LAAS) FOR GPS ....................... .......................... 17,449,700 27,449,700

INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES AUTOMATION (IAPA) ............... .......................... 3,700,000 3,700,000

NAVIGATION AND LANDING AIDS—SERVICE LIFE EXTENSION PROGRAM (SLEP) .................................................................................... .......................... 3,000,000 3,000,000

SUBTOTAL—LANDING AND NAVIGATIONAL AIDS ..................... 177,409,922 124,441,061 190,405,061

ALASKAN NAS INTERFACILITY COMM SYSTEM (ANICS) ......................... 6,000,000 2,500,000 4,000,000

FUEL STORAGE TANK REPLACEMENT AND MONITORING ....................... 10,500,000 9,300,000 9,300,000

FAA BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT—IMPROVE/MODERNIZE ................... 10,000,000 11,700,000 11,700,000

ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS—SUSTAIN/SUPPORT ............................. 28,200,000 54,200,000 54,200,000

AIR NAVAIDS AND ATC FACILITIES (LOCAL PROJECTS) ......................... 1,880,000 2,000,000 2,000,000

AIRCRAFT RELATED EQUIPMENT PROGRAM .......................................... 6,000,000 14,700,000 7,500,000

COMPUTER AIDED ENG GRAPHICS (CAEG) REPLACEMENT ................... 2,600,000 2,600,000 2,600,000

CABLE LOOP SYSTEMS .......................................................................... 5,400,000 4,000,000 4,000,000

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION ............................................ .......................... 1,500,000 1,500,000

AIRCRAFT FLEET MODERNIZATION ........................................................ .......................... 1,500,000 1,500,000

SUBTOTAL—OTHER ATC FACILITIES ........................................ 70,580,000 104,000,000 98,300,000

TOTAL ACTIVITY 2 .................................................................... 1,213,114,400 1,358,872,800 1,413,729,800

NON-ATC FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

NAS MANAGEMENT AUTOMATION PROGRAM (NASMAP) ........................ 1,034,000 1,100,000 1,100,000

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT ................................................ 22,600,000 21,700,000 21,700,000

AVIATION SAFETY ANALYSIS SYSTEM (ASAS) ........................................ 15,980,000 22,100,000 22,100,000

OPERATIONAL DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ODMS) ............................ 1,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000

LOGISTICS SUPPORT SYSTEM AND FACILITIES ...................................... 7,500,000 5,000,000 5,000,000

TEST EQUIPMENT—MAINTENANCE SUPPORT ........................................ 940,000 900,000 900,000

INTEGRATED FLIGHT QUALITY ASSURANCE ........................................... 2,200,000 2,000,000 2,000,000

SAFETY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS SUBSYSTEM (SPAS) ........................ 2,400,000 2,100,000 2,100,000

NATIONAL AVIATION SAFETY DATA CENTER .......................................... 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,800,000

NAS RECOVERY COMMUNICATIONS (RCOM) ......................................... 4,700,000 4,800,000 4,800,000

PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT SYSTEM ............................................... 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000

EXPLOSIVE DETECTION TECHNOLOGY ................................................... 99,500,000 97,500,000 97,500,000

FACILITY SECURITY RISK MANAGEMENT ............................................... 19,339,000 22,400,000 22,400,000

INFORMATION SECURITY ....................................................................... 11,200,000 13,600,000 13,600,000

SUBTOTAL—SUPPORT EQUIPMENT .......................................... 192,693,000 200,500,000 200,500,000

AERONAUTICAL CENTER INFRASTRUCTURE MODERNIZATION ............... 7,200,000 12,000,000 12,000,000

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS) TRAINING FACILITIES ................... 1,880,000 2,000,000 ..........................

DISTANCE LEARNING ............................................................................. 2,162,000 1,300,000 1,300,000

SUBTOTAL—TRAINING EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES ................... 11,242,000 15,300,000 13,300,000

TOTAL ACTIVITY 3 .................................................................... 203,935,000 215,800,000 213,800,000

MISSION SUPPORT

SYSTEM ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT .......................... 24,711,000 26,300,000 26,300,000

PROGRAM SUPPORT LEASES ................................................................. 33,800,000 35,500,000 35,500,000

LOGISTICS SUPPORT SERVICES ............................................................. 6,300,000 7,200,000 7,200,000

MIKE MONRONEY AERONAUTICAL CENTER—LEASE ............................. 14,000,000 14,600,000 14,600,000

IN-PLANT NAS CONTRACT SUPPORT SERVICES .................................... 2,619,000 2,800,000 2,800,000

TRANSITION ENGINEERING SUPPORT .................................................... 37,539,000 38,300,000 38,300,000

FREQUENCY AND SPECTRUM ENGINEERING—PROVIDE ....................... 2,900,000 3,000,000 3,000,000

PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION MOVES ............................................ 26,400,000 11,800,000 11,800,000

FAA SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE ................................................................. 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

TECHNICAL SERVICES SUPPORT CONTRACT (TSSC) ............................. 44,911,000 45,800,000 45,800,000

RESOURCE TRACKING PROGRAM .......................................................... 3,450,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
45

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued

Program name Fiscal year

2001 enacted

Fiscal year

2002 estimate

Committee recommendation

CENTER FOR ADVANCED AVIATION SYSTEM DEV. (MITRE) ................... 65,200,000 76,400,000 81,543,000

TOTAL ACTIVITY 4 .................................................................... 262,830,000 266,700,000 271,843,000

PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES

PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES .................................................. 322,652,600 377,100,000 377,100,000

TOTAL ....................................................................................... 2,656,765,000 2,914,000,000 2,914,000,000

ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

The Committee recommends $637,527,200 for engineering, development, test and evaluation. Adjustments to the budget request are

explained below.

Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping.—The recommendation includes $6,700,000 for the wind profiling and weather research activities at Juneau, Alaska, transfers the ADS–B surveillance funding ($2,800,000) to the Safe Flight 21 line, and denies

the funding for Navigation ($5,700,000) included in this line. Also

included in the recommendation is $2,000,000 for the airfield pavement improvement program authorized under section 905 of Public

Law 106–181.

Safe Flight 21.—The Committee recommendation includes full

funding of the President’s budget request for Safe Flight 21. The

funding in excess of the request is for additional activities associated with the Capstone initiative including funding to install a

Capstone display in the Bethel, Alaska tower. In addition, the

Committee believes that ADS–B technologies hold promise for addressing the growing problem of runway incursions, particularly at

airports with the most complicated ground traffic patterns. As the

Safe Flight 21 program proceeds, attention should be given to how

this program might contribute to greater safety on the airport and

how Safe Flight technologies could be applied to the runway incursion challenge. The Committee notes that the additional resources

provided for the Capstone program include resources to be used for

the development of additional cockpit weather software and continuation of the ground station and avionics installed in Frederick,

Maryland. In addition, the Committee supports the continuation of

survey data collection, validation and dissemination in pursuit of

the goal to place maps of general aviation airports on moving map

equipment in the cockpit. The Committee believes that this process

is the first step to determine whether ADS–B technology can play

a constructive and meaningful role in reducing runway incursions

and further enhancing aviation safety. Accordingly, the Committee

encourages the FAA to disseminate the database of airport diagrams at no cost to manufacturers.

En Route Automation.—The Committee is aware of the recent

Board of Contract Appeals decision that prohibited a single source

award in the En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) procurement. While the Committee remains hopeful that the procurement flexibility that Congress allowed the FAA will expedite mod-
46

ernization and the pace of procurements, unfortunately, the ERAM

program would seem to have resulted in a delay of this modernization initiative. The Committee encourages the FAA to proceed with

this procurement consistent with the order issued by the Special

Master. The funding in this account has been reduced to reflect the

delay in the procurement as a result of the FAA sole source procurement approach which resulted in the Special Master’s decision.

Free Flight Phase Two.—The Committee recommendation denies

$45,000,000 of the budget request for this activity in order to fund

higher priority activities. The Committee recommendation includes

$69,900,000 for Free Flight Phase Two activities, an increase of

$44,900,000 from the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level.

Air Traffic Simulation Equipment.—The Committee understands

that FAA plans to provide new air traffic simulation capabilities for

air traffic controller training as part of its program to modernize

the en route ATC automation system. Given the major changes anticipated in the future en route ATC environment coupled with controller retirements, air traffic controller training requirements are

expected to grow and new traffic simulation capabilities will play

a vital role in the training program. Further, a major lesson

learned from the upgrade of the terminal part of the ATC system

is that early involvement of the controller workforce in development of the system is critical to timely acceptance and implementation of any significant changes. Therefore, the Committee expects

the FAA to proceed with the acquisition of any new simulation capabilities carefully and follow a procurement plan that protects the

best interests of the government. At a minimum, the plan should

assure the timely input of the controller workforce and that the

best available technology at the lowest life-cycle costs is acquired

through an approach that encourages participation by experienced

commercial suppliers of simulation technology.

Subtotal—Terminal Programs

Local Area Augmentation System for GPS (LAAS).—The Committee recommendation for LAAS activity I and activity II provides

an increase of $10,000,000 more than the budget request for certification support and additional implementation activities. The Committee believes that LAAS can provide significant safety, operational, and capacity enhancing benefits in the terminal and airport environment. The Committee supports the industry efforts to

facilitate the realization of the system benefits envisioned by this

program and recommends the following program distribution: development of minimum operational performance standards (MOPS)

and Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPS) for LAAS

Category II/III, $6,000,000; complete development of competitive

LAAS Category I RFP for fiscal year 2002 award, $4,000,000; Terminal Procedures (TERPS) development, data collection, procedures, and flight inspection for Category I at Government/Industry

Partnership (GIP) sites, $6,000,000; completion of receiver development and certification, $3,000,000; Area Navigation (RNAV) Instrument Flight Procedures, $1,000,000; Category I LAAS full scale

development contract, $3,209,700; Category I LAAS system acquisition, $15,000,000; and FAA-Industry Cooperative Agreement,

$5,900,000. Under the recommendation, funding is provided for the
47

procurement and installation of a LAAS system at Las VegasMcCarran International Airport. In addition, the Committee recommendation includes funds within the various distributions to resolve the integrity issues to be addressed consistent with the FAA

certification process.

Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS).—The Committee recommendation fully funds the WAAS budget requests for both Activity I and Activity II. The Committee encourages the FAA to aggressively pursue resolution of the integrity challenges facing the program and to expeditiously seek certification of procedures consistent with the current program decision altitudes. The FAA Administrator has advocated ‘‘build a little, test a little’’ concepts for

NAS modernization and the Committee believes that this program

provides an opportunity for implementation of that strategy.

In addition, the Committee notes that the recommendation includes $10,000,000 for the development of standards and procedures, including surveys. The Committee directs the FAA to focus

on increasing the number of non-precision GPS instruments approaches developed and published for airports that are not Part

139 certificated. In addition, should this program continue to experience the programmatic slippages that have plagued it since its inception, the Committee would look favorably on a reprogramming

to commit additional resources to this immediately beneficial activity.

Technical Center Facilities.—The Committee recommendation

provides for the full request for technical center facilities.

AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

En Route Automation.—The Committee recommendation deletes

$6,900,000 in NAS handoff costs not appropriately budgeted in facilities and equipment.

Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS).—The Committee

recommendation provides $16,000,000 for this program to facilitate

the FAA creation of additional sectors to address aviation traffic

choke points.

Air Traffic Management.—The Committee recommendation provides $49,300,000 for Air Traffic Management delay reduction efforts to permit greater realization of departure sequencing program

initiatives providing fast, graphical interface communications

among and between controllers and traffic managers.

Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure.—The Committee

recommendation provides $30,700,000, an increase of $6,300,000.

The additional resources are in support of the Choke Point program to alleviate delays reflected in the Committee’s recommended

increases in other lines in this account. The Committee anticipates

regular communication from the Administrator related to the execution of the Choke Point program consistent with the program justification provided with the budget request.

Volcano Monitor.—The Committee recommendation includes

$2,000,000, the same level provided in the fiscal year 2001 bill.

ATC Beacon Interrogator (ATCBI)—Replacement.—The Committee recommendation includes an increase of $485,000 to the

budget request for an air traffic control beacon interrogator 5

(ATCBI–5) at Keahole-Kona Airport.
48

Aviation Weather Services Improvements.—The Committee recommendation includes $22,500,000, an increase of $6,800,000 from

the budget request. The increase is for increased deployment of Integrated Terminal Weather Systems (ITWS) beyond the four prototype systems. Weather is the largest contributor to air traffic

delays and ITWS technologies integrate weather data from various

weather sensors and will provide increased forecasts of anticipated

weather conditions.

Aviation Weather Services Improvements—Corridor Information

Weather System (CIWS).—The Committee recommendation pro- vides $5,000,000 for the Corridor Information Weather System

(CIWS). CWIS is a multi-phase program that will utilize terminal

and enroute real time weather sensors to provide a convective

weather forecast for congested enroute corridors.

Terminal programs

Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities—Replace.—The Committee recommendation provides $117,700,000 for this program.

The recommendation provides funding for the following projects:

Newburgh, NY ....................................................................................... $2,200,000

Portland (TRACON), OR ....................................................................... 75,000

Deer Valley, AZ ...................................................................................... 805,000

Seattle (TRACON), WA ......................................................................... 26,084,000

Bedford, MA ........................................................................................... 468,000

Newport News, VA ................................................................................ 1,300,000

Louisville, KY ......................................................................................... 1,600,000

Corpus Christi, TX ................................................................................. 650,000

Vero Beach, FL ...................................................................................... 592,000

Spokane, WA .......................................................................................... 3,120,000

Reno—Tahoe (Relocation of tower and TRACON), NV ...................... 11,080,000

Indianapolis, IN ..................................................................................... 820,000

Swanton, OH .......................................................................................... 824,000

Oshkosh, WI ........................................................................................... 365,000

Chantilly, VA ......................................................................................... 970,000

Manchester, NH ..................................................................................... 5,840,000

Wilmington, DE ..................................................................................... 55,000

Albuquerque, NM .................................................................................. 593,000

Battle Creek, MI .................................................................................... 2,125,000

Savannah, GA ........................................................................................ 500,000

Newark, NJ ............................................................................................ 1,407,000

Everett, WA ............................................................................................ 1,064,000

Rogers, AR .............................................................................................. 750,000

Billings, MT ............................................................................................ 2,725,000

Baltimore (ATCT), MD .......................................................................... 175,000

Houston (TRACON), TX ........................................................................ 75,000

Islip, NY ................................................................................................. 550,000

Phoenix, AZ ............................................................................................ 18,330,000

St. Louis (TRACON), MO ...................................................................... 2,400,000

Boston, MA ............................................................................................. 7,066,000

Port Columbus, OH ............................................................................... 1,229,000

Salina, KS ............................................................................................... 560,000

Richmond, VA ........................................................................................ 2,500,000

N. Las Vegas, NV .................................................................................. 550,000

East Saint Louis, IL .............................................................................. 572,000

Fort Lauderdale(Exec), FL .................................................................... 638,000

Seattle (ATCT), WA ............................................................................... 2,922,000

Abilene, TX ............................................................................................. 1,045,000

LaGuardia, NY ....................................................................................... 2,000,000

Pascagoula, MS ...................................................................................... 2,125,000

West Palm Beach (ATCT), FL .............................................................. 175,000

Beaumont, TX ........................................................................................ 800,000

Roanoke, VA ........................................................................................... 2,140,000

Grand Canyon, AZ ................................................................................. 1,500,000
49

Topeka, KS ............................................................................................. 2,875,000

Reno, NV ................................................................................................ 1,461,000

Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR)—Provide.—The Committee recommendation provides $3,000,000 for this activity and is

supportive of siting a TDWR at Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport,

but is mindful that the procurement of TDWR equipment is virtually completed. As additional technologies are fielded and TDWR

units become available, or as the Low Level Windshear Alert System (LLWAS) procurement matures, the Committee expects the

FAA to fully explore siting a LLWAS or TDWR system at Baton

Rouge Metropolitan Airport.

Terminal Automation.—The Committee recommendation deletes

$11,100,000 from the budget request for activity 2 terminal

sustainment support for ARTS IIIA and ARTS IIE/IIIE. Further,

the Committee recommendation denies $11,000,000 of the STARS

deployment funding due to anticipated schedule slippages in installation of the new equipment and the need to fund higher priority

activities. The Committee is aware of the concern about potential

delays in the STARS ‘‘waterfall’’ related to facilities not being ready

for deployment of the new Stars equipment. The Committee directs

the FAA to aggressively manage facility preparation to allow the

introduction of this modernized equipment and to report to the

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations if delays in the

deployment schedule become inevitable. In addition, the Committee

directs the FAA to report to the House and Senate Committees on

Appropriations on the status of the cost and deployment baseline

for the STARS procurement. Failure to provide such a baseline will

jeopardize the Committee’s support for future deployment funding

for STARS.

Control Tower/tracon Facilities—Improve.—The Committee recommendation includes an additional $3,000,000 to continue the

cable loop relocation project at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. In addition, the Committee directs the FAA to report to the

House and Senate Committees on Appropriation on the cost, feasibility, and schedule to the acquisition of an air traffic control tower

simulation facility sited in the new Newark Traffic Control Tower.

Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR)/ETVS.—The Committee recommendation provides an increase of $10,000,000 to

$21,947,500 to expedite the replacement of electromechanical and

non-supportable electronic voice switching systems to continue reliable voice communications in support of air traffic terminal operations.

NAS Infrastructure Management System (NIMS).—The Committee recommends $18,000,000 for the NAS infrastructure management system (NIMS), an increase of $4,900,000 from the fiscal

year 2001 appropriated level.

Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR–9).—The Committee recommendation provides $22,800,000, an increase of $10,000,000

above the budget request. The additional funds are to expedite the

ASR–9 service life extension program.

Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS).—The Committee recommendation provides $13,127,500, an increase of

$500,000 above the budget request. Within the funds provided,
50

$500,000 is to procure and deploy an AMASS unit at the North Las

Vegas Airport.

Voice Recorder Replacement Program.—The Committee recommendation fully funds the Administration request. The Committee notes that the FAA is delinquent in reporting to the House

and Senate Committees on Appropriations evaluating the benefits

and advisability of deployable flight data recorders to complement

current voice and data recorders. The FAA is directed to complete

and transmit the report as soon as possible to permit consideration

before the conclusion of congressional consideration of the fiscal

year 2002 appropriations act.

Terminal Digital Radar (ASR–11).—The Committee recommendation provides $108,530,600 for the ASR–11 procurement,

a reduction of $47,846,900 from the budget request, but an increase

of almost $40,000,000 from the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The

Committee is aware of the persistent delays in this procurement

and the testing difficulties that the FAA and the Department of

Defense have encountered. Accordingly, the FAA schedule to procure ASR–11 radars under this program will continue to slip, obviating the need for the requested funding in fiscal year 2002. Within

the funds provided, the Committee directs the FAA to complete

surveys for the following siting of ASR–11 or ASR–9 radars, which

may become available as the FAA ASR–9 SLEP proceeds: Eagle

County Airport, Colorado (site survey and study anticipated to be

completed in September 2001); Yakutat ASR–11; Cleveland Hopkins International Airport (or southern coast of Lake Erie) ASR–

11; Jackson Hole, WY ASR–11 (site survey and study anticipated

to be completed by September 2001); and Central Oregon ASR–11.

The Committee notes that a temporary ASR–9 is anticipated to

be sited between Salt Lake City and Provo, Utah in time for the

2002 Winter Olympics. The Committee directs the FAA to plan for

leaving the ASR–9 radar at the Utah location after the Olympics

until an ASR–11 is available to replace the temporary ASR–9. The

Committee understands that this may require acquisition of another temporary air surveillance radar to meet other temporary

surveillance radar requirements.

DOD/FAA ATC Facilities Transfer.—The Committee recommends $2,800,000, including $1,700,000 for the Lawton/Fort Sill

regional Airport ARAC (Airport Radar Approach Control). The

Committee directs the FAA to provide a report outlining the costs

and benefits of a permanent solution to the Fort Sill ARAC staffing

and equipment requirement not later than September 5, 2001.

Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS).—The Committee

recommends $13,280,000 and directs the distribution of the funding

over the budget request as follows:

Henderson Executive Airport, NV .................................................................. $300,000

Curry Coastal Airpark/Brookings Airport, OR .............................................. 80,000

Mexico Municipal Airport, MO ....................................................................... 100,000

Las Vegas-McCarran International Airport, NV .......................................... 300,000

West Memphis Airport, AR ............................................................................. 100,000

Newport Municipal Airport, AR 100,000

Instrument Landing System (ILS)—Establish/upgrade.—The

Committee recommendation provides $30,753,000 and directs the

increase above the budget request to be distributed as follows:
51

Lambert-St. Louis International Airport, MO .............................................. $2,000,000

Wilmington International Airport, NC .......................................................... 1,154,000

Edenton Northeastern regional airport, NC .................................................. 500,000

Reno Stead Airport, NV .................................................................................. 2,595,250

Keokuk Airport, IA .......................................................................................... 350,000

Rice Lake Regional Airport, WI ..................................................................... 1,000,000

Orlando International Airport, FL (Cat 3) .................................................... 2,000,000

Dalles Municipal Airport, OR ......................................................................... 1,400,750

Klawock, AK ..................................................................................................... 1,000,000

Transponder Landing System (TLS).—The Committee recommendation provides $6,000,000, an increase of $3,000,000 over

the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level to acquire and site TLS

units. The Committee directs the FAA to conduct surveys and cost

benefit analysis for TLS deployments with the appropriated funding at the following locations: Brigham City Airport, UT; Sandpoint

Airport, ID; Minden-Tahoe Airport, NV; Bowers Field, WA;

Ellensburg Airport, WA; Friday Harbor Airport, WA; Omak Airport, WA; Pangborn Memorial Airport, WA; Prosser Airport, WA;

Sunnyside Airport, WA; Elko Regional Airport, NV; Reno/Stead

Airport, NV; La Grande/Union County Airport, OR; and William H.

Morse Airport, VT.

Approach Lighting System Improvement (ALSIP).—The Committee recommendation provides $33,331,000 for the procurement

and deployment of runway lighting system to facilitate improved

and precision landing capabilities at various airports. The Committee directs funding to be allocated to the airports listed below

as follows:

Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport lighting upgrades .............. $4,000,000

North Bend Airport, OR (ALSIP) ......................................................... 4,500,000

Olive Branch Airport, MS (MALSR) .................................................... 855,000

Stennis International Airport, MS (MALSR) ...................................... 750,000

North Las Vegas Airport, NV (MALSF) .............................................. 750,000

Rutland Airport Lighting, VT ............................................................... 1,000,000

Reno-Tahoe International Airport, NV (MALSR) ............................... 1,000,000

Alaska statewide rural airport lighting ............................................... 11,000,000

Reno Stead Airport, NV (MALSR) ....................................................... 1,462,500

Niagara Falls International Airport, NY (MALSR) ............................ 2,400,000

Reading Airport, PA (MALSR) ............................................................. 500,000

Baton Rouge Municipal Airport, LA (MALSR) .................................... 500,000

Distance Measuring Equipment (DME).—The Committee recommendation provides $4,800,000 for continued acquisition, replacement, and siting of DME systems. The additional $2,000,000

above the budget request is to procure and site DME systems, including localizers, at Batesville Municipal Airport and Cleveland

Hopkins International Airport.

Loran-C Upgrade/Modernization.—The Committee recommendation provides $21,000,000 for Loran-C upgrades and modernizations, an increase of $8,000,000 over the budget request.

Alaskan NAS Interfacility Comm System (ANICS).—The Committee recommendation provides $4,000,000 for the ANICS communications program, an increase of $1,500,000 over the budget request. The increased funding will permit the expedited improvement of communications capabilities for the FAA in rural Alaska.

Aircraft Related Equipment Program.—The Committee recommendation provides $7,500,000, an increase of $1,500,000 over

fiscal year 2001 and $7,200,000 below the request. The reduction

is made because of budgetary pressures and without prejudice.
52

Non ATC Facilities and Equipment

Explosive Detection Technology.—The Committee recommendation fully funds the budget request and rejects the approach taken

in the fiscal year 2001 statement of managers regarding the pairing of the purchase of explosives detection equipment. Under the

acquisition management system used by the FAA, integrated product teams are established for all major procurements. These teams

include all necessary stakeholders and resources to manage procurements and deployments critical to the FAA’s mission. The Security Equipment Integrated Product Team (SEIPT) includes key

members from the major air carriers, regional air carriers, airports

and the FAA plus contractors. The SEIPT is charged with making

reasoned procurement decisions in the best interests of the aviation

security program.

Directed contract pairing undermines the basic tenant of competition by assuring certain procurements regardless of product

performance, the needs and desires of the end users or the regulatory standards established for utilization. The benefit of a competitive procurement environment is good value, cost effectiveness

and a product that improves performance beyond the initial EDS

certification standards. To realize a truly competitive environment

the Committee believes that it is more effective to provide adequate

funding to attract and motivate capable vendors willing to invest

in the development, improvement and maintenance of their products.

Competition already exists for the funding within the explosive

detection systems line item among various initiatives such as bulk

explosives detection, trace detection systems, threat imaging projection X-ray systems and systems integration. The Committee

through the SEIPT should continue to provide the requirements,

guidance and plans to enhance aviation baggage and passenger

screening and security.

National Airspace System (NAS) Training Facilities.—The Committee recommendation deletes this request due to budget constraints, a reduction of $2,000,000 below the budget request.

Mission Support

Center For Advanced Aviation System Dev. (Mitre).—The Committee recommendation fully funds this budget request including a

$5,143,000 transfer from elsewhere in the FAA account.

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. 1 $187,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 187,781,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 195,808,000

1 Excludes $411,000 in across the board reduction.

This appropriation finances research, engineering, and development programs to improve the national air traffic control system

by increasing its safety, security, productivity, and capacity. The

programs are designed to meet the expected air traffic demands of

the future and to promote flight safety. The major objectives are to

keep the current system operating safely and efficiently; to protect
53

the environment; and to modernize the system through improvements in facilities, equipment, techniques, and procedures in order

to insure that the system will safely and efficiently handle the volume of aircraft traffic expected to materialize in the future.

The Committee directs the FAA to include prior year breakout

information with the budget justification. While the current justifications are generally informative and useful, greater detail on

the prior and current fiscal year budget execution would be very

useful in the Committee’s annual review and oversight responsibilities.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $195,808,000, an increase of $8,027,000 from the fiscal year 2002 budget request, and

an increase of $8,808,000 from 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:

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT

Program Name Fiscal year 2001

enacted

Fiscal year 2002

estimate

Committee recommendation

System Development and Infrastructure:

System planning and resource management .......... $1,164,000 $1,458,000 $1,458,000

Technical laboratory facility ..................................... 12,250,000 12,545,000 12,545,000

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development ..................................................................... 4,000,000 5,143,000 ........................

Information security ................................................. ........................ 2,581,000 2,581,000

Subtotal ................................................................ 17,414,000 21,727,000 16,584,000

Weather:

National laboratory program .................................... 16,615,000 ........................ ........................

In-house support ...................................................... 4,391,000 1,962,000 1,962,000

Center for Wind, Ice and Fog ................................... 700,000 ........................ ........................

Inflight Icing ............................................................. ........................ 2,068,000 2,068,000

Storm Growth and Decay ......................................... ........................ 2,964,000 2,964,000

NEXRAD Algorithms .................................................. ........................ 1,500,000 1,500,000

Aviation Gridded Forecast System ........................... ........................ 1,870,000 1,870,000

Model Development and Enhancement .................... ........................ 1,659,000 1,659,000

Winter Weather Research ......................................... ........................ 1,550,000 1,550,000

Ceiling and Visibility ................................................ ........................ 750,000 750,000

Juneau, AK ................................................................ 3,100,000 6,700,000 ........................

Turbulence ................................................................ ........................ 2,749,000 2,749,000

Airborne Humidity Sensor ......................................... ........................ 501,000 501,000

National Ceiling and Visibility ................................. ........................ 1,956,000 1,956,000

Oceanic Convective Nowcasting ............................... ........................ 1,139,000 1,139,000

Wake Turbulence ...................................................... ........................ 1,000,000 5,000,000

Subtotal ................................................................ 24,806,000 28,368,000 25,668,000

Aircraft Safety Technology:

Aircraft systems fire safety ...................................... 4,750,000 ........................ ........................

Advanced materials/structural safety ...................... 2,797,000 2,974,000 2,974,000

Propulsion and fuel systems .................................... 8,200,000 5,168,000 8,968,000

Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research ............ 4,109,000 4,150,000 6,420,000

Aging aircraft ........................................................... 33,384,000 27,111,000 31,911,000

Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research .... 2,782,000 2,794,000 2,794,000
54

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT—Continued

Program Name Fiscal year 2001

enacted

Fiscal year 2002

estimate

Committee recommendation

Aviation safety risk analysis .................................... 6,657,000 5,784,000 5,784,000

Fire research and safety .......................................... ........................ 5,242,000 5,242,000

Subtotal ................................................................ 62,679,000 53,223,000 64,093,000

System Security Technology:

Explosives and weapons detection .......................... 42,606,000 38,438,000 43,438,000

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

Subtotal ................................................................ 54,520,000 50,325,000 55,325,000

Human Factors and Aviation Medicine:

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 9,900,000

Aeromedical research ............................................... 6,000,000 6,121,000 6,121,000

Subtotal ................................................................ 24,100,000 25,927,000 25,927,000

Environment and Energy ................................................... 3,481,000 7,602,000 7,602,000

Strategic Partnerships ....................................................... ........................ 609,000 609,000

Total appropriation .............................................. 187,000,000 187,781,000 195,808,000

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE

System Planning and Resource Management.—The Committee

recommends $1,458,000 for System Planning and Resource. The

Committee recommendation includes $150,000 for North Dakota

State University (NDSU) to conduct a study on the pricing behavior of airlines operating in small and medium-sized communities.

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development.—The Committee recommendation transfers this funding consistent with the

direction provided in the recommendation for the Facilities and

Equipment guidance.

WEATHER

Juneau, AK.—Consistent with the transfer to, and the guidance

provided in the Facilities and Equipment account, no funding is

provided in the Weather line for the Juneau, Alaska wind initiative.

Wake Turbulence.—The Committee recommendation provides

$5,000,000 for Wake turbulence research, an increase of $4,000,000

from the budget estimate.

Aircraft Safety Technology Propulsion and fuel systems.—The

Committee recommendation is $8,968,000, an increase of

$3,800,000 from the budget estimate. Within the funds provided in

the Committee recommendation, $2,000,000 is to continue activities

of the specialty metals processing consortium. The Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000 for continued research into the
55

performance and combustion characteristics of blended aviation

fuels containing at least 80 percent ethanol. In addition, the Committee recommendation includes $800,000 for the General Aviation

Propulsion—Compression Ignition Test and Evaluation Program

(GAP–CITEP), a joint NASA and FAA effort to evaluate durability

testing of alternative fuels (Jet A and diesel) to facilitate the transition away from leaded aviation fuels for general aviation.

Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research.—The Committee recommends $6,420,000, including $2,270,000 for a joint industry-university aviation safety initiative to conduct in-flight simulation research at the Roswell Industrial Air Center for civilian aircraft pilots. The Committee recognizes the contribution that this research

can make to civilian aviation safety, but is also mindful of the safety considerations implicit in conducting such research safely in

flight. Accordingly, this research should only be undertaken with

this funding upon determination by the FAA administrator that it

can be conducted safely and consistently with the FAA’s research

mission.

Aging aircraft.—The Committee recommendation includes

$31,911,000 for this program, an increase of $4,800,000 from the

budget estimate. The Committee has provided the additional resources to continue the strong collaboration between the Government, universities, and industry as represented by the Center for

Aviation Systems Reliability (CASR) initiative, the Aging Aircraft

Nondestructive Inspection Validation Center (AANC), the Airworthiness Assurance Center of Excellence (AACE) and the Engine

Titanium Consortium (ETC). Within the appropriation, the recommendation includes $3,800,000, an increase of $2,000,000 from

the budget request for the Center for Aviation Systems Reliability

(CASR); $3,000,000 for the Aircraft Nondestructive Inspection Validation Center (AANC); $4,000,000 for the activities of the Engine

Titanium Consortium (ETC) effort, $1,900,000 more than the budget estimate; and $5,000,000 for other activities of the Airworthiness

Assurance Center of Excellence (AACE), an increase of $1,900,000,

over the budget estimate.

SYSTEM SECURITY TECHNOLOGY

Explosives and weapons detection.—The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to continue development of the pulsed fast

neutron analysis (PFNA) cargo inspection system.

ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY

Aircraft Engine Noise reduction technology research.—The Committee is concerned about aircraft engine noise and the impact that

it has on efforts to increase airport capacity and reduce airline

delays. Although airports spend hundreds of millions of dollars per

year on aircraft noise mitigation and abatement efforts, the FAA

and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

spend only a few million dollars for aircraft engine noise reduction

technology research and development. The Committee directs the

FAA to work with NASA to conduct a study on aircraft engine

noise reduction technology research. The study shall: (1) examine

the goals that the two agencies and the National Science Technology Council have for aircraft engine noise reduction and abate-
56

ment; (2) examine the research currently being conducted by FAA,

NASA, academia, airports, airlines, as well as aircraft and aircraft

engine manufacturers; (3) determine whether Federal goals and objectives for aircraft engine noise reduction are consistent with that

research; and (4) if the study concludes that a gap exists between

Federal goals and current research, make recommendations on how

to coordinate aircraft engine noise reduction research to ensure

that most efficient use of Federal dollars.

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $3,200,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 1,800,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,800,000,000

Chapter 471 of title 49, U.S.C. authorizes a program of grants to

fund airport planning and development and noise compatibility

planning and projects for public use airports in all States and territories.

The Committee recommends $1,800,000,000 in liquidating cash

for grants-in-aid for airports. This is consistent with the Committee’s obligation limitation on airport programs for fiscal year 2002

and for the payment of previous years’ obligations.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

Obligation limitation, 2001 1 ................................................................. $3,200,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 3,300,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,300,000,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $7,040,000 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

The total program level recommended for fiscal year 2002 for

grants-in-aid to airports is $3,300,000,000 and is intended to be

sufficient to continue the important tasks of enhancing airport and

airway safety, ensuring that airport standards can be met, maintaining existing airport capacity, and developing additional capacity. The amount provided includes $64,597,000 for administration

and airport technology research. Also, the Administration proposes

that the grants-in-aid funds be used to make up for shortfalls in

overflight fee collections to fund the essential air service program.

The Committee notes that a sizable alternative source of funding

is available to airports in the form of passenger facility charges

[PFC’s]. The first PFC charge began for airlines tickets issued on

June 1, 1992. DOT data shows that as of April 1, 2001, 322 airports have been approved for collection of PFC’s in the amount of

$29,600,000,000. During calendar year 2000 airports collected

$1,550,000,000 in PFC charges and $1,900,000,000 is estimated to

be collected in calendar year 2001. Of the airports collecting PFC’s,

approximately one-fifth collected about 90 percent of the total, and

all of these are either large or medium hub airports. Prior to the

authorized increase in PFC charges, the DOT estimated that these

airports will collect more than $1,600,000,000 in calendar year

2001, depending on the number of applications received and approved and assuming current statutory authority. The first collec-
57

tions at the new $4.50 PFC level began on April 1, 2001 at 31 airports. Eventually, the funding to airports from the 50 percent

nominal increase in authorized passenger facility charges will result in dramatically increased resources for airport improvements,

expansions, and enhancements.

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 over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.

A table showing the distribution of these funds compared to the

fiscal year 2001 levels and the President’s budget request follows:

Fiscal year 2001

enacted

Fiscal year 2002

estimate

Committee recommendation 1

Entitlements ................................................................ $1,943,800,000 $2,070,864,521 $2,068,956,211

Primary airports .................................................. 1,067,900,000 1,053,755,561 1,053,755,561

Cargo airports (3 percent) ................................. 94,200,000 97,311,000 97,062,090

Alaska supplemental .......................................... 21,100,000 21,057,960 21,057,960

States (20 percent) ............................................ 628,000,000 648,740,000 647,080,600

Carryover entitlement ......................................... 132,600,000 250,000,000 250,000,000

Small Airport Fund ...................................................... 269,000,000 305,399,619 305,399,619

Non hub .............................................................. .......................... 174,514,068 174,514,068

Non commercial service ..................................... .......................... 87,257,034 87,257,034

Small hub ........................................................... .......................... 43,628,517 43,628,517

Discretionary Set Asides .............................................. 358,500,000 335,350,704 332,880,836

Noise (34 percent of discretionary) ................... 315,300,000 294,928,193 292,756,038

Reliever (0.66 percent of discretionary) ............ 6,100,000 5,725,077 5,682,911

Military airport program (4 percent of discretionary) ........................................................... 37,100,000 34,697,434 34,441,887

Other Discretionary ...................................................... 568,800,000 532,085,156 528,166,334

Capacity/Safety/Security/Noise ........................... 426,600,000 399,063,867 396,124,751

Remaining discretionary ..................................... 142,200,000 133,021,289 132,041,584

Administration ............................................................. 59,900,000 56,300,000 57,050,000

Airport Research .......................................................... .......................... .......................... 7,547,000

Total limitation on obligations ...................... 3,200,000,000 3,300,000,000 3,300,000,000

1 Assumes EAS will be fully supported through overflight fee collections.

AIRPORT DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

Within the overall obligation limitation in this bill, over

$1,200,000,000 is available for discretionary grants to airports. The

Committee has carefully considered a broad array of discretionary

grant requests that can be expected in fiscal year 2002. Specifically, the Committee expects the FAA to give priority consideration

to applications for the projects listed below in the categories of the

AIP for which they are eligible. If funds in the remaining discretionary category are used for any projects in fiscal year 2002 that

are not listed below, the Committee expects that they will be for

projects for which FAA has issued letters of intent (including letters of intent the Committee recommends below that the FAA subsequently issues), or for projects that will produce significant aviation safety improvements or significant improvements in systemwide capacity or otherwise have a very high benefit/cost ratio.
58

Within the program levels recommended, the Committee directs

that priority be given to applications involving the further development of the following airports:

Airport/State Project

Abbeville Municipal Airport, AL .............................................. Various improvements

Abilene Airport, TX .................................................................. Apron rehab, runway improvements & taxiway

extension

Abrams Municipal Airport, MI ................................................. Parallel taxiway & runway extension

Akutan Airport, AK .................................................................. Access road

Albertus Airport, IL .................................................................. Runway & taxiway rehabilitation

Anchorage International Airport, AK ....................................... North/South runway expansion and maintenance facility

Andrews-Murphy Airport, NC ................................................... Land acquisition & extension of runway

Ankeny Regional Airport, IA .................................................... Taxiways & access road improvements

Atka Airport, AK ...................................................................... Runway extension

Baltimore-Washington International, MD ............................... Expansion & rehabilitation airfield, taxiways &

ramps

Barbour County Regional Airport, WV ..................................... Various improvements

Bartlesville Municipal Airport, OK .......................................... Runway safety improvements

Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, LA .................................... Apron improvements, master plan, noise mitigation, reconstruct runway

Baxter County Regional Airport, AR ........................................ Various improvements

Benedum Airport, WV .............................................................. Various improvements

Bennington Airport, VT ............................................................ Runway extension

Bert Mooney Airport, MT ......................................................... Reconstruct ramp

Bismarck Municipal Airport, ND ............................................. Comprehensive terminal improvement

Bowling Green-Warren County, KY .......................................... Land acquisition

Bowman Field, KY ................................................................... Air ambulance facility

Braxton County Airport, WV .................................................... Various improvements

Buffalo Niagara International Airport, NY .............................. Runway improvements & land acquisition

Burlington Municipal Airport, IA ............................................. Taxiway relocation

Cambridge Municipal Airport, OH ........................................... Land acquisition, runway construction, taxiway

improvements

Cartersville Airport, GA ........................................................... Runway & taxiway lighted signage

Central Illinois Regional, IL .................................................... Purchase equipment

Centre Municipal Airport, AL .................................................. Runway extension

Charleston International Airport, SC ...................................... Various improvements

Clarion County Airport, PA ...................................................... Runway extension

Clayton County-Tara Field, GA ................................................ Land acquisition & runway rehabilitation

Clayton Municipal Airport, AL ................................................. Runway extension

Clinton Municipal Airport, IA .................................................. Rehab. & resurface runway & taxiway

Columbia County Airport, NY .................................................. Rehabilitation of access road & taxiway

Concord Regional Airport, NC ................................................. Runway extension

Connellsville Airport, PA ......................................................... Runway expansion

Council Bluffs Municipal Airport, IA ....................................... Various improvements

Dane County Regional Airport, WI .......................................... Apron reconstruction & drainage system

Davis Airport, WV .................................................................... Various improvements

DeKalb-Peachtree Airport, GA ................................................. Airport expansion & noise control

Denver International, CO ........................................................ Construct new runway

Des Moines International Airport, IA ...................................... Various improvements

Detroit Metro Airport, MI ......................................................... Terminal redevelopment/rehabilitation

Dona Ana County Airport, NM ................................................. Widening & strengthening of runway & taxiway

Double Eagle II Airport, NM .................................................... Runway rehabilitation and runway equipment

Eastern Iowa Airport, IA .......................................................... Taxiway & apron reconstruction

Eastern West Virginia Regional/Shephard Field, WV ............. Various improvements

Eau Claire-Chippewa Valley Airport, WI ................................. Runway improvements

Elkins-Randolph County-Jennings Randolph Field, WV .......... Various improvements
59

Airport/State Project

Erie International Airport, PA .................................................. Runway extension

Fairfield Municipal Airport, IA ................................................ Construct new runway

Fairmont Municipal Airport, WV .............................................. Various improvements

Fayette Airport, WV ................................................................. Various improvements

Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport, NY ....................................... Rehabilitation of taxiways

Ford Airport, MI ....................................................................... Runway reconstruction, tiedown rehab & apron

rehab

Fork-Quillayute, WA ................................................................. Master plan improvements

Galveston-Scholes Field, TX .................................................... Taxiway reconstruction, apron rehab. & main

runway overlay

Gary/Chicago Airport, IN ......................................................... Expansion of general use apron

General Mitchell Field, WI ....................................................... Taxiway relocation & expansion

Girdwood Airport, AK ............................................................... Miscellaneous improvements

Glynco Jetport, GA ................................................................... Terminal renovation

Gogebic County Airport, MI ..................................................... Land acquisition

Grand Forks International Airport, ND .................................... Construct runway

Grant County Airport, WV ........................................................ Various improvements

Great Falls International, MT .................................................. Upgrade runways to cat IIIc status

Greater Rochester International, NY ....................................... Terminal improvements, construct taxiway, &

runway improvements

Greenbrier Valley, WV .............................................................. Various improvements

Gulfport-Biloxi Regional Airport, MS ....................................... Land acquisition for runway extension

Hector International Airport, ND ............................................. Runway extension, taxiway reconstruction &

construct taxiway

Helena Regional Airport, MT ................................................... Terminal remodeling & expansion project

Houghton County Memorial Airport, MI .................................. Runway rehabilitation

Huntsville International Airport, AL ........................................ Miscellaneous improvements

Indiana County Airport, PA ..................................................... Runway extension

Indianapolis International Airport, IN ..................................... Various improvements

Iowa City Municipal Airport, IA ............................................... Land acquisition

Ivanof Bay Airport, AK ............................................................ Runway extension

Jackson County Airport, WV .................................................... Various improvements

Jackson International Airport, MS ........................................... Cargo apron improvements & related projects

Jonesboro Municipal Airport, AR ............................................. Runway extension

Juneau International Airport, AK ............................................. Snow removal maintenance facility

Kee Field, WV .......................................................................... Various improvements

Kodiak Airport, AK ................................................................... Passenger terminal

LaCrosse Municipal Airport, WI .............................................. Runway & taxiway reconstruction

Lafayette Regional Airport, LA ................................................ Various improvements

Lake Placid Airport, NY ........................................................... Rehabilitation of taxiway

Lambert-St. Louis International, MO ...................................... Noise mitigation

Lancaster Airport, PA .............................................................. Runway extension

Lee Gilmer Memorial Airport, GA ............................................ Construct new taxiways

Logan County Airport, WV ....................................................... Various improvements

Louisville International, KY ..................................................... Reconstruction of taxiway, land acquisition &

noise reduction

Madisonville Municipal, KY ..................................................... Extension project

Manhattan Regional Airport, KS ............................................. Aircraft parking expansion project

Marlinton Airport, WV .............................................................. Various improvements

Marshall County Airport, WV ................................................... Various improvements

Mason County Airport, WV ...................................................... Various improvements

McComas-Lee’s Summit Municipal, MO ................................. Runway improvement, land acquisition, hangar removal

McComb-Pike County Airport, MS ........................................... Lengthen runway & install taxiway

Memphis International Airport, TN ......................................... Taxiway extension

Mercer County Airport, WV ...................................................... Various improvements

Mid-Delta Regional Airport, MS .............................................. Runway repaving

Middle Georgia Regional Airport, GA ...................................... Runway extension

Mingo County Airport, WV ....................................................... Various improvements
60

Airport/State Project

Minot International Airport, ND .............................................. Runway reconstruction

Missoula International Airport, MT ......................................... Land acquisition & runway relocation

Monroe County Airport, AL ...................................................... Various improvements

Monroe Regional Airport, LA ................................................... Terminal & infrastructure improvements

Montgomery Regional Airport (Dannelly Field), AL ................. Terminal reconstruction (phase II)

Morehead-Rowan County, KY .................................................. New airport

Morey Airport, WI ..................................................................... Land acquisition

Morgantown Municipal-Walter L. Bill Hart Field, WV ............. Various improvements

Mt. Vernon Airport, IL ............................................................. Runway rehabilitation & land acquisition

New Orleans International Airport, LA .................................... Runway improvements & safety enhancements

Oakland-Pontiac Airport, MI ................................................... Land acquisition for noise reduction

Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT ..................................................... Runway, taxi lane, and ramp improvements

Olive Branch Airport, MS ........................................................ Extend runway & construct new ramp

Orlando International Airport, FL ............................................ Runway improvements

Otsego County Airport, MI ....................................................... Runway reconstruction

Outagamie County Regional Airport, WI ................................. Taxiway, apron, & lighting improvements

Owensboro-Daviess County, KY .............................................. Runway extension

Panama City-Bay County Airport, FL ...................................... Various improvements

Pellston Regional Airport, MI .................................................. Terminal construction & road relocation

Petersburg Airport, AK ............................................................ Runway extension

Philadelphia Municipal Airport, MS ........................................ Various improvements

Philadelphia International Airport, PA .................................... Runway lighting & visual navigation aids

Piedmont Triad International Airport, NC ............................... Construct new runway

Pittsburgh International Airport, PA ....................................... Runway lighting & various improvements

Port Columbus International Airport, OH ................................ Airport renovation

Princeton-Caldwell County, KY ............................................... Airport expansion

Pryor Field Regional Airport (Decatur), AL ............................. Runway extension, apron improvements, terminal expansion

Quad City Airport, IL ............................................................... Taxiway extension

Raleigh County Memorial, WV ................................................ Various improvements

Redmond Airport, OR .............................................................. Terminal area expansion

Reno/Stead Airport, NV ........................................................... Runway & taxiway reconstruction, extension, &

lighting improvements

Reno/Tahoe International Airport, NV ..................................... Ramp expansion, land acquisition, noise reduction, & various improvements

Richard B. Russell Airport, GA ............................................... Runway, infrastructure improvements

Richmond International Airport, VA ........................................ Taxiway improvement

Richwood City Airport, WV ...................................................... Various improvements

Rickenbacker International Airport, OH .................................. Various improvements

Ripley Airport, MS ................................................................... Runway extension

Rock County Airport, WI .......................................................... Runway & taxiway improvements

Ronald Reagan Washington National, VA .............................. Various improvements

Saline County Airport, AR ....................................................... Airport relocation

San Francisco International Airport, CA ................................. Site and engineering studies

Saratoga County Airport, NY ................................................... Construction of runway

Schroon Lake Airport, NY ........................................................ Construction of apron and taxiway

Shreveport Regional Airport, LA .............................................. Runway extension

Southcentral Alaska Float Plane Facility, AK ......................... Master plan and preliminary engineering and

design

Spencer Airport, WV ................................................................ Various improvements

Spokane International Airport, WA .......................................... Various improvements

St. Paul Airport, AK ................................................................. Runway improvements

Stanly County Airport, NC ....................................................... Apron improvements & airport upgrades

Stennis International Airport, MS ........................................... Land acquisition, apron expansion, & various

improvements

Stillwater Airport, OK .............................................................. Runway & taxiway extension

Stockton Metropolitan Airport, CA .......................................... Various improvements

Sullivan County International Airport, NY .............................. Construction of apron & taxiway

Summersville Airport, WV ....................................................... Various improvements
61

Airport/State Project

Ticonderoga Municipal Airport, NY ......................................... Reconstruction of runway

Toledo Express Airport, OH ..................................................... Airport expansion & cargo parking apron

Tri-State/Walker-Long Field, WV ............................................. Various improvements

Troy Municipal Airport, AL ...................................................... Security and safety improvements

Tulsa International Airport, OK ............................................... Terminal & baggage claim improvements

Tunicia Municipal Airport, MS ................................................ Design, planning, & construction

Tyler Pounds Field, TX ............................................................ Terminal (phase III) & building lighting facilities

Unalaska Airport, AK ............................................................... Runway extension

Upper Cumberland Regional Airport, TN ................................ Apron expansion

Upshur County Regional Airport, WV ...................................... Runway extension

Valley International Airport, TX ............................................... Land acquisition, road relocation

Washington Dulles International, VA ...................................... Various improvements

Waynesboro Municipal Airport, MS ......................................... Runway extension

Welch Municipal Airport, WV .................................................. Various improvements

Westchester County Airport, NY .............................................. Design & construction of deicing facility

Wheeling-Ohio County Airport, WV .......................................... Various improvements

Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport, PA .................... Various improvements

William B Hartsfield-Atlanta International, GA ...................... Runway extension

Williamsport Airport, PA .......................................................... Runway extension

Wilmington International Airport, NC ..................................... Land acquisition for runway & taxiway widening

Winfield Airport, WV ................................................................ Various improvements

Wittman Field, WI ................................................................... Land acquisition

Wood County/Gill Robb Wilson Field, WV ............................... Various improvements

Yeager Airport, WV .................................................................. Various improvements

Zanesville Municipal Airport, OH ............................................ Runway resurfacing

Indianapolis International Airport, IN.—The Committee commends the FAA for technical assistance provided in the development of the mid-field terminal project at Indianapolis International

Airport. The Committee urges the FAA to give full and fair consideration to requests for discretionary funding for the construction of

the new passenger terminal complex, including taxiways, air traffic

control tower, aprons, and associated lighting, marking and drainage improvements to support the relocated terminal complex.

Charleston International Airport, SC.—The Committee urges the

FAA to give full and fair consideration to requests for discretionary

funding for the expansion of vehicle parking capacity at the airport.

Continued expansion of the existing flat lot will result in unreasonable walking distances for passengers; therefore, a vertical deck is

required.

Noise mitigation.—The Committee is aware of the recent agreement between the FAA, the Port of Seattle, the Highline School

District and the State of Washington to fund and undertake noise

mitigation activities and improvements to 15 schools in the

Highline School District. Given the longstanding need to address

the negative impact of noise on children in the Highline school system, the Committee commends FAA’s critical role in helping all

parties reach this agreement and expects the FAA to expeditiously

commit funds and assistance to this effort.

LETTERS OF INTENT

Congress authorized FAA to use letters of intent [LOI’s] to fund

multiyear airport improvement projects that will significantly en-
62

hance systemwide airport capacity. FAA is also to consider a

project’s benefits and costs in determining whether to approve it for

AIP funding. FAA adopted a policy of committing to LOI’s no more

than about 50 percent of forecasted discretionary funds allocated

for capacity, safety, security, and noise projects. The Committee

viewed this policy as reasonable because it gave FAA the flexibility

to fund other worthy projects that do not fall under a LOI. Both

FAA and airport authorities have found letters of intent helpful in

planning and funding airport development.

Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport.—Hartsfield Atlanta

International Airport is undertaking the construction of a critical

5th runway in order to relieve congestion at the world’s busiest airport which is expected to experience a 28 percent growth rate in

the next 10 years. According to the recently released FAA Airport

Capacity Benchmark Report, Hartsfield exceeds its capacity for

more than eight hours a day during bad weather. The new runway

will increase capacity by 58 (37 percent) additional operations in

good weather and 45 (34 percent) additional operations in bad

weather. At a cost of more than $1,000,000,000, the Hartsfield 5th

runway is one of the most expensive runways in the nation since

the additional runway must cross an interstate. Local officials are

carrying over 80 percent of the cost and are seeking a $171,000,000

Letter of Intent (LOI) over 10 years from the Airport Improvement

Program (AIP) funds to cover the cost of this critical capacity

project. Therefore, the Committee strongly recommends that the

FAA give priority consideration to this important funding request.

Piedmont Triad International Airport (Greensboro, High Point,

Winston-Salem, North Carolina).—The Committee encourages the

FAA to give full and immediate consideration to the Piedmont

Triad Airport Authority’s application for a Letter of Intent for construction of a parallel runway (5L–23R), and related improvements

described in the Authority’s application which are necessary to integrate this new runway into existing facilities. The Committee is

informed that substantial safety, capacity and economic benefits

will accrue from the completion of this project.

ADMINISTRATION

The bill provides that, within the overall obligation limitation,

$64,957,000 is available for administration of the airports program

by the FAA and airport technology research.

The Committee recommendation includes $7,547,000 for Airport

Technology Research. The program is included in AIP for fiscal

year 2002 as the research directly supports improvements in airport safety, capacity, and efficiency. The research is directed at

mitigation of wildlife strike hazards to aircraft, improvement of airport rescue and firefighting, improvement of airport lighting and

marking, reduction in runway incursions, and improvement in airport pavement and design. It also includes funding for the 18 FTE

in the Airport Technology Branch at the William J. Hughes Technical Center and continued operation of the pavement test facility

at the Technical Center.
63

SMALL COMMUNITY AIR SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PILOT PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. ...........................

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... ...........................

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1 $20,000,000

1Funded within the Federal Aviation Administration.

The Committee bill includes $20,000,000 for the Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program authorized by section

203 of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act

for the 21st Century. The program is designed to improve air service to underutilized airports in small and rural communities. The

total number of communities or groups of communities that can

participate in the program is limited to no more than 4 from any

one State and no more than 40 overall. The program gives priority

to communities that have high air fares, will contribute a local

share of the cost, will establish a public-private partnership to facilitate airline service, and where assistance will provide benefits

to a broad segment of the traveling public.

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Second career training program.—The Committee has included

bill language which was included in the President’s budget request

which prohibits the use of appropriated funds for the second career

training program. This prohibition has been carried in annual appropriations acts for many years.

Sunday premium pay.—The bill retains a provision, first included in the fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill, which prohibits

FAA from paying Sunday premium pay, except in those cases

where the individual actually worked on a Sunday. This provision

is identical to that which was in effect for fiscal years 1995–2000.

It was requested by the administration for fiscal year 2002.

Manned auxiliary flight service stations.—The Committee has retained bill language which was requested by the administration to

prohibit the use of funds for operating a manned auxiliary flight

service station in the contiguous United States. There is no funding

provided in the ‘‘Operations’’ account for such stations in fiscal year

2002.

Facilitating Environmental Reviews to Increase Airport Capacity.—The bill authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration (sec.

335) to use funds from airport sponsors, including the airport’s

‘‘Grants-in-Aid for Airports’’ entitlement funds, 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.

FAA Facilities on Airport Property.—The bill includes a provision

(sec. 340) that 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.
64

Southeast Louisiana Regional Airport.—The Committee notes

that substantial Federal investments have already been made in

the New Orleans International Airport and the Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport. Accordingly, the Committee has included language (sec. 336) that would prohibit the use of funds made available in this Act from being used to further any efforts toward developing a new regional airport for southeast Louisiana until a

comprehensive plan is submitted by a commission of stakeholders

to the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration and

that plan, as approved by the Administrator, is submitted to and

approved by both the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations. The commission of stakeholders is to be comprised of one

representative from each of the following entities: the Louisiana

Airport Authority, the New Orleans Aviation Board, the Greater

Baton Rouge Airport District, Orleans Parish, Jefferson Parish, St.

Charles Parish, St. John the Baptist Parish, St. James Parish, Ascension Parish, Iberville Parish, and East Baton Rouge Parish. The

comprehensive plan shall analyze the feasibility of building a new

regional airport for southeast Louisiana. This analysis shall consider future demand and existing capacity of the New Orleans

International Airport and the Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport. If

a new airport is recommended, the plan shall propose a site, estimate total project costs and benefits, and identify funding sources

with projected contribution percentages from each source. Additionally, if a new airport is recommended, the plan shall also analyze

the impact of a new airport on the existing New Orleans International Airport and Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, and identify the short and long term roles of these existing airports and the

proposed new airport.

Mandatory separation for controllers.—The bill includes a provision (sec. 337) that allows air traffic controllers, covered under the

Civil Service Retirement System, who reach the age of 56 years to

work until they have completed their 20 years of service. The Civil

Service Retirement System allows other groups who are covered

under mandatory separation requirements, such as firefighters and

law enforcement officers, to continue working until they have completed their 20 years of service unless the Secretary determines

such action would compromise safety. This provision targets a limited population of air traffic control specialists that, due to unusual

circumstances, would not qualify for an annuity upon mandatory

separation from the air traffic controller profession.

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

(RESCISSION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

The bill includes a rescission of $301,720,000 in contract authority. This budget authority was made available in Public Law 106–

181 for prior fiscal years. However, since such funds were above

the obligation limitation for those years, 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.
65

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2002 PROGRAM

The principal mission of the Federal Highway Administration is

to, in partnership with State and local governments, foster the development of a safe, efficient, and effective highway and intermodal

system nationwide including access to and within National Forests,

National Parks, Indian Lands and other public lands.

Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level of

$32,873,695,000 would be provided for the activities of the Federal

Highway Administration in fiscal year 2002. The following table

summarizes the fiscal year 2001 program levels, the fiscal year

2002 program request and the Committee’s recommendations:

[In thousands of dollars]

Program

Fiscal year— Committee rec2001 program ommendation

level

2002 budget

estimate

Federal-aid highways limitation 1 2 ................................... 29,661,806 31,563,157 31,919,103

Limitation on administrative expenses 2 .................. (295,119) (317,693) (316,521)

Exempt Federal-aid obligations ........................................ 1,068,926 954,592 954,592

Emergency relief supplemental obligations ...................... 729,452 ....................... .......................

Appalachian Development Highway System ..................... 279,963 ( 3 ) 350,000

Total ..................................................................... 31,730,769 32,518,157 33,224,103

1 Includes Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program.

2 Does not reflect 0.22 percent reduction in section 1403 of Public Law 106–554. 3 Requested within Federal-aid Highway limitation on obligations.

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $295,119,000

Budget estimate, 2002 2 ......................................................................... 317,693,000

Committee recommendation 2 ............................................................... 316,521,000

1Does not reflect 0.22 percent reduction in section 1403 of Public Law 106–554. 2Funding for motor carrier administration expenses is included as a separate limitation in

the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

The limitation on administrative expenses controls spending for

virtually all the salaries and expenses of the Federal Highway Administration. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

changed the funding source for the highway research accounts from

the administrative takedown of the Federal-Aid Highway Program

to individual contract authority provisions. The Committee recommends a limitation of $316,521,000.

The following table reflects the fiscal year 2001 level, the 2002

level requested by the administration, and the Committee’s recommendation:

[In thousands of dollars]

Program

Fiscal year— Committee

recommendation 2001 level 1 2002 budget estimate

Administrative expenses:

Salaries and benefits ......................................... 210,748 222,094 221,594
66

[In thousands of dollars]

Program

Fiscal year—

Committee

recommendation 2001 level 1 2002 budget estimate

Travel .................................................................. 9,473 9,473 9,473

Transportation .................................................... 465 465 465

GSA rent ............................................................. 16,537 20,621 20,621

Communications, rent, and utilities .................. 9,857 9,857 9,857

Printing ............................................................... 1,512 1,512 1,512

TASC ................................................................... 6,621 7,025 7,025

Supplies .............................................................. 2,000 2,000 2,000

Equipment .......................................................... 4,736 7,265 4,736

NDGPS ................................................................. 2 6,000 6,000 6,000

Other ................................................................... 32,521 37,381 33,238

Total ............................................................... 294,470 317,693 316,521

1 Reflects reduction of $649,000 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554. 2 Reflects fiscal year 2001 appropriation in FAA facilities and equipment.

Administrative expenses.—The Committee recommends

$316,521,000 for this appropriation. The reduction to the budget estimate were made for lack of adequate justification and are made

without prejudice. The Committee recommendation for administrative expenses provides FHWA the flexibility to allocate the appropriation among such expenses as ADP, permanent change of station, travel, transportation, salaries and benefits consistent with

the other recommendations in the report. The Committee notes

that the on-board workforce is 200 FTE below authorized levels for

fiscal year 2002 which should provide ample flexibility to execute

the program within the appropriated level.

The Committee recommends the following items be funded under

section 104(a)(1)(A): $7,000,000 for motor carrier research and technology to support ongoing research and technology efforts in the

areas of driver, both commercial and non-commercial; carriers; and

vehicle; $11,000,000 for the motor carrier crash data improvement

program, the commercial driver’s license program and to staff

FMCSA’s 24-hour toll-free hotline for reporting safety violations.

The programs were requested under the Federal Motor Carrier

Safety Administration’s limitation on administrative expenses.

Incidental Appurtenances For Recreational Vehicles.—The Committee notes that the Federal Highway Administration issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (65 FR 50471) for excluding devices

from the measurement of commercial vehicle length and width. The

Committee recognizes that recreational vehicles may have incidental appurtenances, such as retractable awnings, which may exceed the Federal width limitation when transported commercially

from the manufacturer to the dealer or to a recreational vehicle

show. A number of States have enacted, and more are working to

enact, laws that allow incidental appurtenances on noncommercial

recreational vehicles to exceed State width limitations. The Committee encourages the FHWA Administrator to include in its final

rule an allowance within reasonable safety limitations for the commercial transport of these recreational vehicles with appurtenances.
67

Child passenger protection education grants.—The Committee

recommendation includes $7,500,000 to continue providing grants,

as authorized under section 2003(b) of TEA21, that train safety

professionals on all aspects of proper child restraint use and educate the public on the installation, selection, and placement of child

safety seats. The Committee commends NHTSA and its private sector partners for the progress made in training child passenger safety technicians and the local law enforcement and fire and rescue

departments in jurisdictions throughout the Nation that have embraced this training to prevent children from sustaining serious injuries or death in motor vehicle crashes that could be avoided with

the correct use of safety seats and seat belts.

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2001 1 .............................................................................. $29,661,806,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ...................................................................... 31,563,157,000

Committee recommendation ............................................................. 31,919,103,000

1Does not reflect 0.22 percent reduction in section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal year

2002 Federal-aid highways obligations to $31,919,103,000, an increase of $2,257,297,000 over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and

$355,946,000 over the budget request.

The obligation limitation for the Federal-aid highways program

included in this bill includes $4,543,000,000 in obligations resulting

from revenue aligned budget authority. TEA21 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 TEA21 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. TEA21 calls for any such increases in budget authority to be distributed proportionately among

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.

The budget request proposes to allocate most of this additional

obligation authority in fiscal year 2002 as prescribed in TEA21.

However, under the budget request $45,000,000 would be for a

pilot program that promotes innovative transportation solutions for

people with disabilities, $100,000,000 would be available for a

matching grant program to promote access to alternative methods

of transportation, and $56,300,000 would be for infrastructure improvements and new construction of State border inspection facilities. As structured in the budget request, the funding for these

three new initiatives serves to divert funds that the States would

otherwise receive for their highway construction program.
68

The Committee bill takes an alternative approach in funding the

Federal Aid Highway program. Rather than allow the Administration’s new initiatives to divert funds from critical construction

projects, the Committee bill funds these initiatives while simultaneously increasing the overall highway obligation ceiling to a level

that exceeds the President’s request by more than $350,000,000

and exceeds the TEA21 ‘‘guarantee’’ level by more than $200,000,000. In so doing, the Committee has ensured that the inclusion of funding for the Administration’s new initiatives does not

cause any State to receive less funding than it would receive under

TEA21. The following table shows the distribution of highway

funds apportioned to the States under three scenarios: the President’s budget, the TEA21 ‘‘guarantee’’ level, and the Committee

bill.

ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2002 DISTRIBUTIONS OF OBLIGATION AUTHORITY INCLUDING REVENUE

ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY (RABA)

STATES PRESIDENT’S

BUDGET TEA21 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

ALABAMA ...................................................................... $566,511,257 $574,827,776 $577,421,616

ALASKA ......................................................................... 324,269,096 328,940,873 330,068,374

ARIZONA ....................................................................... 476,186,349 483,272,351 485,296,910

ARKANSAS .................................................................... 369,931,009 375,335,782 377,007,862

CALIFORNIA .................................................................. 2,575,356,363 2,613,436,166 2,625,371,789

COLORADO ................................................................... 331,829,877 336,803,854 338,367,119

CONNECTICUT .............................................................. 418,735,856 424,857,291 426,604,579

DELAWARE ................................................................... 123,731,983 125,597,446 126,156,512

DIST. OF COL ............................................................... 111,232,620 112,905,811 113,461,761

FLORIDA ....................................................................... 1,315,964,047 1,335,314,821 1,340,727,168

GEORGIA ...................................................................... 993,260,885 1,007,842,452 1,012,084,040

HAWAII ......................................................................... 143,636,258 145,749,736 146,396,732

IDAHO ........................................................................... 213,144,293 216,207,782 217,132,444

ILLINOIS ....................................................................... 940,718,957 954,584,798 958,973,791

INDIANA ........................................................................ 684,089,673 694,124,843 697,056,932

IOWA ............................................................................ 335,934,637 340,935,302 342,544,279

KANSAS ........................................................................ 327,546,106 332,420,255 333,998,171

KENTUCKY .................................................................... 502,204,627 509,616,053 511,902,994

LOUISIANA .................................................................... 452,090,581 458,744,179 460,828,129

MAINE .......................................................................... 148,115,406 150,296,194 150,965,783

MARYLAND ................................................................... 450,456,522 457,141,037 459,221,107

MASSACHUSETTS ......................................................... 521,389,676 529,010,797 531,382,806

MICHIGAN ..................................................................... 897,902,206 911,099,796 915,086,478

MINNESOTA .................................................................. 416,823,370 422,952,733 424,903,997

MISSISSIPPI .................................................................. 359,469,679 364,785,349 366,433,631

MISSOURI ..................................................................... 674,762,726 684,712,687 687,857,328

MONTANA ..................................................................... 274,978,039 279,067,519 280,191,315

NEBRASKA .................................................................... 218,374,158 221,682,069 222,730,540

NEVADA ........................................................................ 201,004,225 203,981,546 204,845,632

NEW HAMPSHIRE ......................................................... 143,859,654 145,954,414 146,607,934

NEW JERSEY ................................................................ 744,416,758 755,388,010 758,848,367

NEW MEXICO ................................................................ 274,300,109 278,349,735 279,567,454

NEW YORK ................................................................... 1,431,997,998 1,452,991,989 1,459,524,558

NORTH CAROLINA ........................................................ 784,611,105 796,163,503 799,597,222

NORTH DAKOTA ............................................................ 183,292,508 186,051,055 186,888,899

OHIO ............................................................................. 953,452,799 967,530,840 971,945,447

OKLAHOMA ................................................................... 431,826,535 438,264,878 440,305,534

OREGON ....................................................................... 343,975,034 348,986,794 350,610,314
69

ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2002 DISTRIBUTIONS OF OBLIGATION AUTHORITY INCLUDING REVENUE

ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY (RABA)—Continued

STATES PRESIDENT’S

BUDGET TEA21 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

PENNSYLVANIA ............................................................. 1,402,932,188 1,423,214,880 1,429,841,991

RHODE ISLAND ............................................................. 166,909,740 169,397,262 170,141,877

SOUTH CAROLINA ......................................................... 471,171,962 478,115,699 480,130,208

SOUTH DAKOTA ............................................................ 202,904,761 205,868,131 206,798,300

TENNESSEE .................................................................. 642,143,249 651,607,025 654,553,557

TEXAS ........................................................................... 2,129,063,307 2,160,512,571 2,169,688,601

UTAH ............................................................................ 218,330,009 221,562,282 222,596,372

VERMONT ..................................................................... 127,800,270 129,716,683 130,304,157

VIRGINIA ....................................................................... 721,735,421 732,406,462 735,639,679

WASHINGTON ................................................................ 498,001,860 505,357,221 507,717,553

WEST VIRGINIA ............................................................. 315,004,203 319,563,087 321,079,763

WISCONSIN ................................................................... 551,294,746 559,402,290 561,790,930

WYOMING ..................................................................... 195,809,021 198,756,810 199,678,939

TOTAL ............................................................. 28,304,483,718 28,721,408,919 28,848,877,475

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS PROGRAMS

The roads and bridges that make up our nation’s highway infrastructure are built, operated, and maintained through the joint efforts of Federal, State, and local governments. States have much

flexibility to use Federal-aid highway funds to best meet their individual needs and priorities, with FHWA’s assistance and oversight.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21), the

highway, highway safety, and transit authorization through fiscal

year 2003 makes funds available in the following major categories:

National highway system.—The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 authorized the National

Highway System (NHS), which was subsequently established as a

163,000-mile road system by the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. This system serves major population centers,

intermodal transportation facilities, international border crossings,

and major destinations. It is comprised of all interstate routes, selected urban and principal rural arterials, defense highways, and

major highway connectors carrying up to 76 percent of commercial

truck traffic and 44 percent of all vehicle traffic. A State may

transfer up to half of its NHS funds to the Surface Transportation

program (STP) and all NHS funds with the concurrence of the Secretary of Transportation. The Federal share of the NHS is an 80

percent match and funds remain available for 4 fiscal 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.

All remaining Federal funding to complete the initial construction of the interstate system has been provided through previous

highway legislation. The TEA21 provides flexibility to States in
70

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 opento-traffic segments may relinquish Interstate Construction fund eligibility for the work and transfer the Federal share of the cost to

their Interstate Maintenance program.

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

Brent Spence Bridge replacement I–75/I–71, Kentucky ..................... $2,000,000

I–15 reconstruction, Utah ..................................................................... 10,000,000

I–25 Broadway & Alameda Interchanges, Colorado ........................... 6,000,000

I–44 Fenton industrial corridor improvements in St. Louis County,

Missouri .............................................................................................. 5,000,000

I–470 reconstruction and removal of bridges, Missouri ..................... 8,000,000

I–65 & Valley Dale Road interchange, Alabama ................................ 10,000,000

I–70 improvements from CBD to northside, Missouri ........................ 5,000,000

I–70/MD85/MD355 intersection reconstruction, Maryland ................ 12,000,000

I–79 Bridgeport to Meadowbrook Road, Harrison County, West Virginia ..................................................................................................... 12,000,000

I–80 widening & reconstruction in Johnson County, Iowa ................ 8,129,000

I–81 South Martinsburg I/C Bridge, Berkeley County, West Virginia ..................................................................................................... 8,000,000

I–95 Northern Maine ............................................................................. 6,000,000

Pearl River Bridge—I–55 Connector, Mississippi ............................... 11,000,000

Woodall Rodgers Extension Bridge, Texas .......................................... 10,000,000

Surface transportation program.—The surface transportation program (STP) is a very 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 TEA21 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 is

continued by the TEA21 to provide 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 the national bridge needs

used in the program’s apportionment formula for the following

year.
71

At least 15 percent, but not more than 35 percent, of a State’s

apportioned bridge funds must be spent on bridges not on the Federal-aid system.

Funds provided for the bridge discretionary program in fiscal

year 2002 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount

Antelope Valley Overpass Bridge, Nebraska ....................................... $1,000,000

Avis Overhead Bridge WV107, West Virginia ..................................... 6,183,000

Cooper River Bridge, South Carolina ................................................... 15,000,000

Covered Bridges, Section 1224 of TEA21 ............................................ 10,000,000

Golden Gate Bridge seismic retrofit program, California .................. 3,500,000

Hoan Bridge rehabilitation, Wisconsin ................................................ 15,000,000

Hood Canal Bridge replacement, Washington .................................... 5,967,000

I–195 Washington Bridge, Rhode Island ............................................. 5,000,000

Missisquoi Bay Bridge, Vermont .......................................................... 5,000,000

James Rumsey Bridge WV480, West Virginia .................................... 11,680,000

Lafourche Parish-Leeville Bridge, Louisiana ...................................... 3,000,000

Metro Parks Zoo Historic Bridge replacement, Ohio .......................... 2,000,000

Missouri River Bridge approach from Route 74, Missouri ................. 1,300,000

Route 13 Bridge between Route 10 & Ray County, Missouri ............ 2,000,000

Sand Island Bridge resurfacing, Hawaii .............................................. 5,000,000

SR–240 Yakima Bridge replacement, Washington ............................. 5,000,000

US–81 Missouri River Bridge PE, South Dakota ............................... 1,000,000

Wacker Drive Disc Bridge reconstruction, Illinois .............................. 8,000,000

Waldo-Hancock Suspension Bridge replacement, Maine ................... 7,000,000

National Historic Covered Bridge Preservation Program.—The

Committee recommendation provides $10,000,000 for the covered

bridge program within the funds made available for the discretionary bridge program.

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, as long as DOT, after consultation

with EPA, determines they are likely to help meet national ambient air quality standards. TEA21 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

regional emissions and verifying new mobile source control techniques.

Federal lands highways.—This program provides authorizations

through three major categories—Indian reservation roads, parkways and park roads, and public lands highways (which incorporates the previous forest highways category)—as well as a new

category for Federally-owned public roads providing access to or

within the National Wildlife Refuge System. TEA21 also establishes a new program for improving deficient bridges on Indian reservation roads.

The Committee directs that the funds allocated for this program

in this bill and in permanent law are to be derived from the

FHWA’s public lands discretionary program, and not from funds al-
72

located to the National Park Service’s regions. Funds provided for

the Federal lands program in fiscal year 2002 shall be available for

the following activities:

Project Amount

Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge access road, Utah ........................ $500,000

Blackstone River Bikeway, Rhode Island ............................................ 1,000,000

Blueberry Lake road improvements, Green Mountain National Forest, VT ................................................................................................. 750,000

Broughton Bridge over USACOE Milford Lake, Kansas .................... 1,500,000

Chincoteague Wildlife Refuge access roads, Virginia ......................... 1,000,000

Metlakatla/Walden Point Road, AK ..................................................... 2,000,000

City of Rocks Back Country Byway, Idaho .......................................... 2,000,000

Clark Fork River Bridge replacement, Idaho ...................................... 3,000,000

Forkland Park Access Road improvements, Alabama ........................ 475,000

Fort Peck Lake public access road, Montana ...................................... 1,000,000

Glade Creek Road & Brooklyn Road, New River Gorge National

River, West Virginia .......................................................................... 3,500,000

Highway 26, Oregon .............................................................................. 2,000,000

Hoover Bridge Bypass, Arizona ............................................................ 8,000,000

Lewis & Clark Bicentennial Roadway project, North Dakota ........... 1,500,000

Lewis & Clark Interpretive Center access road, Montana ................. 1,200,000

Little River Bridge in Pocahontas County, WV28, West Virginia ..... 800,000

Shotgun Cove Road, Alaska .................................................................. 650,000

Ramport Road, Alaska .......................................................................... 500,000

Little River Canyon National Reserve Road Improvements, Alabama .................................................................................................... 500,000

Marshall County #10 & BIA #15 through Sica Hollow State Park,

South Dakota ...................................................................................... 500,000

Mat-Su Borough/Wasilla, Alaska ......................................................... 500,000

Miller Creek Road preliminary design & EIA, Montana ................... 5,000,000

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge and parking .................... 850,000

New Bedford Whaling National Historic Park Sign project, Massachusetts ............................................................................................... 500,000

New Highway from North Dakota to Idaho, Montana ....................... 1,000,000

Noxubee River Bridge replacement & access route, Mississippi ....... 1,300,000

Route 4 Jemez Pueblo Bypass, New Mexico ........................................ 1,000,000

Sand Point Road Improvement, Alaska ............................................... 1,500,000

SD–63 Corson County reconstruction, South Dakota ......................... 5,000,000

SH–149 Rio Grande National Forest resurfacing, Colorado .............. 3,500,000

Statewide Improvements, Hawaii ........................................................ 6,000,000

US–3 & Acadia National Park Road improvement, Maine ................ 1,000,000

US–30 Morrison/Whiteside county expansion, Illinois ....................... 1,000,000

USA–95 Laughlin cut-off to RR Pass widening, Nevada .................... 9,000,000

Wind Cave National Park Highway resurfacing, South Dakota ..... 1,500,000

Clark’s River National Wildlife, Kentucky .......................................... 2,200,000

Wood River Road upgrades, Alaska ..................................................... 800,000

Yellowstone & Missouri Rivers, & Fort Union Trading Post Bike

Trail, North Dakota ........................................................................... 500,000

Revenue Aligned Budget Authority.—TEA21 provides that guaranteed funding levels for the Federal-aid highways and highway

safety programs are adjusted to reflect revised receipt estimates for

the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. In conjunction

with this adjustment, section 110 of Title 23, entitled Revenue

Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), authorizes contract authority in

an amount equal to the additional obligation limitation. This follows through on the TEA21 philosophy that highway program

funding levels are linked to receipts to the Highway Account of the

Highway Trust Fund.

In fiscal year 2002, the RABA adjustment is $4,543,000,000. The

budget request proposes to reallocate and set-aside $145,000,000

for the New Freedom initiative and $56,300,000 to support State

border infrastructure construction.
73

The Committee allocation increases the Federal highway obligation limitation above the President’s budget estimate by $355,946,000. This was done so the Committee allocation could

fund the New Freedom initiative and the additional border infrastructure investments articulated in the budget estimate while still

providing for all States to receive more under the Committee recommendation than under the budget estimate or under the TEA21

distribution.

Minimum guarantee.—Under TEA21, 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,

$2,800,000,000 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. TEA21 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.

Emergency Relief Highways.—The Committee is aware that,

under the Federal-aid Highway Program, the Emergency Relief

Program will be replenished with $100,000,000 on October 1, 2001.

This replenishment will take place whether or not the Transportation Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2002 is enacted by that

date. The Committee directs the Federal Highway Administrator to

be especially attentive to the timely processing of applications

stemming from recent Federal disasters including recent floods in

Southern West Virginia.

High priority projects.—TEA21 includes 1,850 high priority

projects specified by the Congress. Funding for these projects totals

$9,500,000,000 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 TEA21 high priority projects

are subject to the Federal-aid obligation limitation, but the obligation limitation associated with the projects does not expire.

National corridor planning and border infrastructure programs.—TEA21 created a national corridor planning and development program that identifies funds for planning, design, and construction of highway 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 outlined in legislation. The coordinated border infrastructure program is established to improve
74

the safe movement of people and goods at or across the U.S./Mexico

and U.S/Canada borders.

Project Amount

Alameda corridor east construction project, California ...................... $5,000,000

Border Inspection Stations .................................................................... 56,300,000

Coalfields Expressway, West Virginia ................................................. 16,000,000

Cross-Harbor Freight Tunnel EIS, New York ..................................... 5,000,000

East-West Highway, Maine .................................................................. 5,000,000

Everett Development, 41st Street Overpass project, Washington ..... 1,500,000

FAST Corridor, Tacoma to Everett, Washington ................................ 20,000,000

Highway 20 Freeport bypass review, design, & engineering, Illinois 1,100,000

Highway 61, Ave. of the Saints interchange, Moscow Mills, Missouri ..................................................................................................... 3,000,000

I–29 construction from Exit 81 North to South of I–90 at Sioux

Falls, South Dakota ........................................................................... 14,000,000

I–49 South from Lafayette east to Westbank, Louisiana ................... 17,181,000

I–5 Trade Corridor, Oregon .................................................................. 6,000,000

I–69 Great River Bridge, Arkansas ...................................................... 10,000,000

I–69 construction Odom Road to I–55, Mississippi ............................. 12,000,000

I–69 corridor, Louisiana ........................................................................ 12,000,000

I–69 Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana ............................................. 5,000,000

I–85 extension to I–59/20, Alabama ..................................................... 5,000,000

I–90/94 new by-pass to Highway 3 EIS, Montana .............................. 5,000,000

I–905 Otay Mesa Border Port of Entry, California ............................. 10,000,000

King Coal Highway, West Virginia ...................................................... 20,000,000

North/South transitway Charlotte/Mecklenburg, North Carolina ..... 5,000,000

Northern Border Cascadia Program of Projects, Washington ........... 3,500,000

Route 10, West Virginia ........................................................................ 15,000,000

Route 71 McDonald County, Missouri ................................................. 8,000,000

SR–67 between I–110 & US–49, Mississippi ....................................... 12,000,000

State border safety inspection facilities, Texas ................................... 15,000,000

Tuscaloosa Eastern Bypass from I–59 to Rice Mine Road, Alabama .................................................................................................... 20,000,000

US–15 expansion from Pennsylvania to Presho, New York ............... 4,000,000

US–151 expansion Dickeyville & Dodgeville, Wisconsin .................... 6,000,000

US–2 planning & construction, New Hampshire ................................ 1,500,000

US–278 Beaufort County widening project, South Carolina .............. 6,000,000

US–395 North Spokane Corridor, Washington ................................... 7,000,000

US–49—I–55 flyover, Mississippi ......................................................... 3,000,000

US–63 improvements for Corridor 39, Arkansas ................................ 18,000,000

US–64/87 Ports-to-Plains corridor study, New Mexico ....................... 1,000,000

US–95 improvements Milepost 522 to Canadian boarder, Idaho ...... 12,600,000

Yakima Grade Separation Program of Projects, Washington ............ 4,000,000

Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.—Section 1207 of TEA21

reauthorized funding for the construction of ferry boats and ferry

terminal facilities.

Funds provided for the Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities

program under the Committee recommendation shall be available

for the following activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount

Bainbridge-Seattle Ferry, dolphin replacement project, Washington ........................................................................................................ $4,000,000

Baylink Ferry intermodal center, California ....................................... 2,000,000

City of Brewer, Maine ........................................................................... 1,000,000

Cleveland Trans-Erie Ferry Service, Ohio ........................................... 800,000

Fishers Island Ferry District, Connecticut .......................................... 1,000,000

Hatteras Inlet Ferry between Ocracoke Island & Outer Banks,

North Carolina ................................................................................... 1,500,000

High Speed Ferry & facility, New Bedford & Martha’s Vineyard,

Massachusetts .................................................................................... 1,500,000

Inter-Island Ferry Authority, Coffman Cove, Alaska ......................... 3,000,000

Jersey City Pier redevelopment & terminal construction, New Jersey ........................................................................................................ 2,000,000

Kings Point Ferry, Mississippi ............................................................. 500,000
75

Project Amount

North Carolina State Ferry, North Carolina ....................................... 689,000

Port of Rochester Harbor & Ferry Terminal improvements, New

York ..................................................................................................... 3,500,000

Station Square River Landing Boat Docks, Pennsylvania ................. 1,000,000

TEA21 Setaside ...................................................................................... 20,000,000

Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority Marina Ferry, Ohio ................. 500,000

National scenic byways program.—This program provides funding for roads that are designated by the Secretary of Transportation as All American Roads (AAR) or National Scenic Byways

(NSB). These roads have outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities. The Committee recommendation provides $28,550,348 for this program in fiscal year

2002. Funds provided for the national scenic byways program shall

be available for the following activities in the corresponding

amounts:

Project Amount

Lewis and Clark Northwest Passages—US–12 in Nez Perce and

Lewis Counties, Idaho ....................................................................... $2,000,000

Program of Projects, Washington ......................................................... 2,683,767

Program of Projects, West Virginia ...................................................... 6,599,062

Route 29 Scenic Byway improvements between I–295 to

Frenchtown Borough Line, New Jersey ........................................... 4,000,000

Seward Highway Millenium Trail improvements, Alaska ................. 5,000,000

Talladega Scenic Highway, Alabama ................................................... 5,000,000

West Virginia Program of Projects, National Scenic Byways program.—The Committee provides $6,599,062 to the State of West

Virginia for Section 1219 National Scenic Byways program. The

Committee expects the following projects to be funded: (1) $20,000

for Washington Heritage Trail Seed Grant; (2) $25,000 for Midland

Trail CMP Implementation; (3) $87,160 for Washington Heritage

Trail Map/Guide; (4) $115,280 for West Virginia Byways and

Backways Program; (5) $19,000 for Promoting Treasures within the

Mountains II; (6) $8,000 for Little Kanawha/Cedar Creek Brochure;

(7) $204,000 for Beverly Byway Center; (8) $99,432 for Cranberry

Mountain Nature Center; (9) $28,570 for Mountain Waters Byway

Project #1; (10) $96,800 for Little Kanawha Byway Rathbone Phase

II; (11) $145,808 for General Andrew Lewis Park; (12) $8,000 for

improvements to Virginia’s Chapel; (13) $22,640 for SP Turnpike Walking Tour; (14) $3,973,244 for Fayette Station Road Improvements; (15) $150,128 for Fayette Station Road Interpretation; (16)

$1,596,000 for Booker T. Washington Institute.

Washington State Program of Projects, National Scenic Byways

program.—The Committee provides $2,683,767 to the State of

Washington for Section 1219 National Scenic Byways program. The

Committee expects the following projects to be funded : (1)

$790,680 for North Pend Oreille Scenic Byway—Sweet Creek Falls

interpretive trail project; (2) $112,800 to Construct Diablo Lake

Overlook Facility; (3) $88,000 for Oakcreek Wildlife Byway interpretive site project; (4) $190,730 for Paden Creek visitor and salmon access; (5) $1,397,557 for Northeast Peninsula safety facility; (6)

$64,000 for Byway interpretive center Design at Federation Forest;

(7) $40,000 for SR 231 Corridor Management Plan.

Transportation and community and system preservation pilot program.—TEA21 created a new transportation and community and

system preservation program that provides grants to States and
76

local governments for planning, developing, and implementing

strategies to integrate transportation and community and system

preservation plans and projects. These grants may be used to improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce transportation externalities and the need for future infrastructure investment, and improve transportation efficiency and access consistent

with community character. Funds provided for this program for fiscal year 2002 shall be available for the following activities:

Project Amount

Everett Development Project, Track Replacement, Washington ....... $3,700,000

Alkali Creek Bike/Pedestrian Trail, Montana ..................................... 500,000

Buffalo City inner harbor & waterfront development, New York ..... 1,570,000

Casper Second Street Extension, Wyoming ......................................... 1,000,000

Cedar Rapids Edgewood Road Project, Iowa ....................................... 3,000,000

Charles Town Streetscape improvements & welcome center, West

Virginia ............................................................................................... 400,000

Charleston Renaissance Project, West Virginia .................................. 600,000

Chester Waterfront Development Streetscape, Pennsylvania ........... 500,000

Church Street Marketplace in Burlington, Vermont .......................... 1,500,000

City of Elk Point bike/pedestrian trail system, South Dakota .......... 200,000

City of Tea bike/pedestrian path, South Dakota ................................. 50,000

Claymont Transportation Project, Delaware ....................................... 100,000

Colombia Harden Street improvements, South Carolina ................... 5,000,000

Concord 20/20 Vision Program, New Hampshire ................................ 500,000

Crowley Historic Parkerson Avenue redevelopment, Louisiana ........ 500,000

Cullman County pedestrian walkway, Alabama ................................. 100,000

East Chicago Railroad Avenue Project, Indiana ................................. 1,000,000

Farrington safety enhancements, Hawaii ............................................ 2,000,000

Grand Forks Greenway trail system, North Dakota .......................... 1,000,000

Henderson downtown street widening, North Carolina ..................... 1,000,000

Henderson Riverfront Project, Kentucky ............................................. 1,000,000

Highway 61 from KY487 to Columbia PE/Design, Kentucky ............ 1,000,000

Kenai River Trail, Alaska ..................................................................... 500,000

Lewisburg Comprehensive Transportation Plan, West Virginia ....... 125,000

Lincoln Antelope Valley 16th Street overpass, Nebraska .................. 1,600,000

Littleton Integrated & Networked Community, New Hampshire ..... 750,000

Littleton Main Street pedestrian improvements, New Hampshire ... 2,000,000

Los Angeles county bike path, California ............................................ 1,000,000

Macon Community Preservation, Georgia ........................................... 200,000

Madison State Street project, Wisconsin ............................................. 1,000,000

Maryville Downtown revitalization, Tennessee .................................. 4,000,000

Metrowest Community Transportation pilot project, Massachusetts ..................................................................................................... 500,000

Montana Highway 2 feasibility project, Montana ............................... 1,000,000

Phalen Boulevard Project, St. Paul, Minnesota .................................. 1,600,000

Museum Campus Trolleys expanded service, Illinois ......................... 500,000

Mystic Streetscape Projects, Connecticut ............................................ 1,000,000

National Underground Railroad Freedon Center, Ohio ..................... 3,000,000

Olympic Discovery Trail, Washington .................................................. 1,600,000

Palmer Railroad right-of-way, Alaska .................................................. 1,100,000

Payette river Greenway Project, Idaho ................................................ 105,000

Peachtree Corridor Project, Atlanta ..................................................... 6,000,000

Prattville-Daniel Pratt Historic District development, Alabama ...... 500,000

Riverwinds Project in West Deptford, New Jersey ............................. 500,000

Route 101 Corridor study for Amherst, Milford, & Wilton, New

Hampshire .......................................................................................... 200,000

Route 3 upgrade PE between Franklina & Boscawen, New Hampshire ..................................................................................................... 100,000

Route 79 relocation & Harbor enhancements, Massachusetts ........... 1,000,000

Saddle Road Improvement Project, Hawaii ......................................... 4,000,000

Satsop Development Park road improvements, Washington ............. 1,500,000

Springfield Center City streetscape improvements, Missouri ........... 1,000,000

SR–520 Coverings with Communities, Washington ........................... 1,000,000

St. Landry Road extension in Ascension Parish & I–10 link study,

Louisiana ............................................................................................ 500,000
77

Project Amount

Stockton Miracle Mile/Pacific Avenue resurfacing, California ........... 1,000,000

Strong Avenue improvements & rail relocation in Rutland,

Vermont .............................................................................................. 1,500,000

Sutherland, NE viaduct to UP Tracks & US–30, Nebraska .............. 2,000,000

Temple Street Reopening Project, Connecticut ................................... 1,000,000

Trunk Highway 610/10 interchange at I–94, Minnesota .................... 1,600,000

Tukwila Transit Oriented Development at Long Acres, Washington ........................................................................................................ 1,500,000

Tuscaloosa City Riverwalk & Parkway development, Alabama ........ 1,000,000

Tuscaloosa Interdisciplinary Research Improvements, Alabama ...... 5,000,000

US–61 Woodville widening project, Mississippi .................................. 300,000

Waterford National Historic District, Virginia ................................... 1,000,000

Statewide planning rules.—The Committee is concerned that the

Department has yet to issue final regulations implementing Section

1204 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. This

section was intended to strengthen statewide planning by ensuring

that all stakeholders—in metropolitan and non-metropolitan

areas—are involved in the long-range transportation planning process. The Committee is aware that earlier this year the FHWA and

FTA notified their field offices that despite the fact that new planning regulations have not been finalized, the requirements in

TEA21 are in effect. The Committee does not believe that this guidance should serve as a substitute for the issuance of a final rule

for metropolitan and statewide planning. The Committee directs

the FHWA Administrator to submit a letter to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees describing what actions the agency

has taken to ensure that transportation officials from rural areas

are being consulted in the long-range transportation planning process.

Seattle, Washington.—The Federal Highway Administration is

expected to continue working with the I–90 Steering Committee in

Washington State to advance the R–8A alternative through the environmental review process.

APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $279,963,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... ( 1 )

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 350,000,000

1The budget estimate requests funding under the Federal-Aid Highway obligation limitation.

The Committee recommendation includes $350,000,000 for the

Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). The amount

provided is $70,037,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 comparable

level. The budget request assumes funding to be provided for the

ADHS under the Federal-aid highway obligation ceiling. Funding

for this initiative is authorized under section 1069(y) of Public Law

102–240—the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.

The ADHS program provides funds for the construction of the Appalachian corridor highways in the 13 States that comprise the Appalachian region. These highways, in many instances, are intended

to replace some of the most deficient and dangerous segments of

rural roadway in America.

The accompanying bill includes a general provision (sec. 331) providing $20,000,000 for surface transportation projects. Within the

funding provided, $3,000,000 shall be available for interstate maintenance at I–405 Renton/Port Quendall, Washington; $5,000,000 for
78

improvements to Titan Road, Colorado; $1,000,000 for the

Owensboro Riverfront redevelopment project, Kentucky; and

$2,000,000 for the Martinsburg Roundhouse redevelopment project

in Martinsburg, West Virginia.

LIMITATION ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

Limitation, 2001 1 .................................................................................. ...........................

Budget estimate, 2002 1 ........................................................................ ...........................

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ($447,500,000)

1 Resources available in fiscal year 2001 and requested in fiscal year 2002 are assumed within

the Federal aid highway obligation limitation in the budget request for fiscal year 2002.

The limitation controls spending for the transportation research

and technology programs of the FHWA. This limitation includes

the intelligent transportation systems, surface transportation research, technology deployment, training and education, and university transportation research. The Committee recommendation provides an obligation limitation for transportation research of

$447,500,000. This limitation is consistent with the provisions of

TEA21.

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

Highway research and development.—The Committee appreciates

the improvement in the justification accompanying the budget request and notes the presentation of the surface research estimate

separate from the presentation of the technology deployment funding estimate. The Committee notes that FHWA is compiling a list

of research and technology accomplishments and will be reporting

to both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on

how funds to advance research and development are being tracked

separately from funds spent on technology deployment and assessment functions. The tracking of these expenses and a summary of

the resulting accomplishments will help the Committee exercise

oversight over the R&T program. Within the funds provided for

highway research and development under the surface transportation research program, the Committee recommends the following

allocation consistent with the provisions of TEA21:

Environment, planning, and real estate .............................................. $15,558,000

Research and technology program support ......................................... 8,510,000

International research ........................................................................... 500,000

Structures ............................................................................................... 14,250,000

Safety ...................................................................................................... 14,619,000

Operations and asset management ...................................................... 10,200,000

Pavements research ............................................................................... 13,753,000

Policy research ....................................................................................... 8,330,000

Long Term Pavement Project (LTTP) .................................................. 10,000,000

Advanced Research ................................................................................ 1,000,000

Other ....................................................................................................... 4,280,000

Environment, planning, and real estate.—The Committee recommends $15,558,000 for environment, planning, and real estate
79

research, $31,000 more than the budget estimate and $5,258,000

more than the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level. Within the funds

provided, the Committee recommendation includes $1,300,000 for

the completion of the dust and persistent particulate abatement

demonstration study at Kotzebue, Alaska.

Research and technology program support.—The Committee recommends $8,510,000, a reduction of $750,000 from the budget estimate, and $7,610,000 above the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level.

The Committee recommendation includes $750,000 for the Center

for Coastal Transportation Engineering Research at the University

of South Alabama to develop civil engineering design of transportation facilities in environmentally sensitive coastal areas.

International research.—The Committee recommendation pro- vides $500,000 for international research activities, the amount authorized in TEA21, and a reduction of $700,000 from the budget estimate.

Structures.—The Committee recommends $14,250,000 for structures research, an increase of $4,801,000 from the budget estimate.

The funds provided will help the FHWA reduce deficiencies on National Highway System Bridges and should facilitate continued

progress on high performance materials and engineering applications to design, repair, retrofit, inspect, and rehabilitate bridges.

Within the funds provided, $1,500,000 is for research into composite structure and related engineering research at West Virginia

University; $850,000 is to conduct non-corrosive anti-icing projects

in the Chicago region; $2,000,000 is for research conducted at the

Transportation Research Center (TAC) at the Washington State

University including non-destructive evaluation of bridges to determine load capacities, impacts of earthquakes mitigation on elevated

highway structures and the development of advanced composite

materials for bridges; and $500,000 is for the Electromagnetic Interrogation of Structures Project at the University of Vermont to

develop wireless methods of assessing structure integrity.

Safety.—The Committee recommendation provides $14,619,000

for safety research activities consistent with the budget estimate.

These funds will allow FHWA to continue to accelerate the substantial progress being made on technologies or strategies to reduce

run-off-the-road crashes, improve night-time driving, reduce the

frequency of crashes at intersections, improve pedestrian safety,

and develop and test the Interactive Highway Safety Design Model

(IHSDM). The Committee understands that the IHSDM is ready

for additional testing by State DOTs. The additional funds will expedite this process, and will also allow the use of the IHSDM to

explore the safety implications of alternative designs. The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 to continue the research

into the effectiveness of Freezefree anti-icing systems.

Operations and asset management.—The Committee recommendation provides $10,200,000 for highway operations and

asset management research activities, an increase of $5,000,000

from the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level, and $4,382,000 less

than the budget estimate.

Pavements research.—The Committee recommends $13,753,000

for highway pavement research, including work on asphalt, Portland cement concrete pavements, polymer additives, and recycled
80

materials, $1,000,000 more than the budget estimate. Along with

the funds provided for the LTPP, this appropriation will allow

FHWA to undertake research projects to improve the quality of

America’s highway infrastructure. Within the funds provided, $1,000,000 is for a continuation of alkali silica reactivity research

with lithium based technologies to mitigate alkali silica reactivity

to prevent highway pavement cracking. In addition, the Committee

supports funding for the Center for Portland Cement Concrete

Pavement Technology Research.

Policy research.—The Committee recommendation provides $8,330,000, consistent with the budget estimate and an increase of

$3,730,000 from the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level.

Advanced research.—The Committee recommendation provides $1,000,000 for advanced research, consistent with the budget estimate. The Committee requests FHWA to review the advanced research program as it currently exists and to explore the role FHWA

should play in sponsoring a more robust national effort that focuses

on fundamental, long-term research. The results of this effort

should be reflected in the fiscal year 2003 budget request or accompanying communications.

Other.—The Committee supports the FHWA effort with

AASHTO, TRB, among others in advancing a national R&T agenda

in the areas of safety, infrastructure renewal, operations and mobility, planning and environment, and policy analysis and systems

monitoring. The Committee recognizes the benefits of improved

communication and coordination between key partners and stakeholders, and awaits completion of the synthesis report on the partnership initiative.

ITS Standards, Research, Operational Tests, Development, and

Deployment.—The Committee recommends that the $225,000,000

authorized in TEA21 for ITS research and associated activities in

fiscal year 2002 be allocated in the following manner:

Research and Development ................................................................... $48,680,000

Operational Tests .................................................................................. 12,930,000

Evaluation/Program Policy Assessment ............................................... 7,750,000

Architecture and Standards .................................................................. 15,290,000

Program Support ................................................................................... 9,000,000

Integration .............................................................................................. 11,350,000

ITS Deployment Incentive Program ..................................................... 120,000,000

Specified ITS deployment projects.—It is the intent of the Committee that the following projects contribute to the integration and

interoperability for 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

TEA21. Funding for deployment activities are to be available as follows:

Project Amount

Alaska Statewide ................................................................................... $3,000,000

Arizona Statewide EMS ........................................................................ 1,000,000

Atlanta Metropolitan GRTA, Georgia .................................................. 1,000,000

Central Ohio ........................................................................................... 3,000,000

Chattanooga, Tennessee ........................................................................ 2,380,000

Clark County, Washington ................................................................... 1,000,000

Crash Notification, Alabama ................................................................ 2,500,000

Delaware Statewide ............................................................................... 4,000,000
81

Project Amount

Detroit, Michigan (Airport) ................................................................... 4,500,000

Durham, Wake Counties, North Carolina ........................................... 1,000,000

Fargo, North Dakota ............................................................................. 1,500,000

Forsyth, Guilford Counties, North Carolina ........................................ 2,000,000

Harrison County, Mississippi ............................................................... 1,000,000

Hawaii Statewide ................................................................................... 1,750,000

Illinois Statewide ................................................................................... 3,750,000

Indiana Statewide .................................................................................. 1,500,000

Jackson Metropolitan, Mississippi ....................................................... 1,000,000

Las Vegas, Nevada ................................................................................ 3,000,000

Lexington, Kentucky ............................................................................. 1,500,000

Macomb, Michigan (border crossing) .................................................... 2,000,000

Maine Statewide (Rural) ....................................................................... 1,000,000

Maryland Statewide .............................................................................. 2,000,000

Moscow, Idaho ........................................................................................ 2,000,000

Nebraska Statewide ............................................................................... 5,000,000

New York, New Jersey, Connecticut (TRANSCOM) ........................... 7,000,000

North Greenbush, New York ................................................................ 2,000,000

Pennsylvania Statewide (Turnpike) ..................................................... 1,000,000

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Drexel) .................................................... 3,000,000

Rutland, Vermont .................................................................................. 1,200,000

Sacramento, California .......................................................................... 6,000,000

SAFE–T, Indiana ................................................................................... 3,000,000

Santa Anita, California ......................................................................... 1,000,000

Santa Teresa, New Mexico .................................................................... 1,500,000

South Carolina Statewide ..................................................................... 7,000,000

Southeast Corridor, Colorado ............................................................... 9,900,000

Southern Nevada (bus) .......................................................................... 2,200,000

St. Louis, Gateway Guide, Missouri ..................................................... 1,500,000

Texas Statewide ..................................................................................... 4,000,000

Travel Network, South Dakota ............................................................. 3,200,000

Vermont Statewide (Rural) ................................................................... 1,500,000

Washington Metropolitan Region ......................................................... 4,000,000

Washington Statewide ........................................................................... 6,000,000

Wisconsin Communications Network ................................................... 620,000

Wisconsin Statewide .............................................................................. 2,000,000

Illinois Statewide.—The Committee provides $3,750,000 to the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) for Intelligent Transportation Systems grants. Within the funds provided, the Committee expects IDOT to fund the following projects: (1) $750,000 to

Lake County for a Traffic Management Center; (2) $750,000 to

DuPage County for projects affecting Army Trail Road, Glen Ellyn

Road, and Maple Avenue Signal Interconnects; (3) $750,000 to the

City of Quincy for the 18th Street Bridge; and (4) $750,000 to the

City of Carbondale for Southern Illinois University-Carbondale’s

Materials Technology Center.

NATIONWIDE DIFFERENTIAL GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... ...........................

Budget estimate, 2002 2 ......................................................................... $6,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 6,000,000

1Funding for NDGPS provided within FAA ‘‘facilities and equipment’’ account. 2Funding to be derived from administrative takedown under 23 U.S.C. 104(a)(1)(A).

NDGPS.—The Committee recommendation includes $6,000,000

for continued investment in the Nationwide NPGPS Network, as

proposed in the budget estimate and as presented in the limitation

on administrative expenses.
82

BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $31,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 43,760,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 34,760,000

1Does not reflect 0.22 percent reduction in section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] was established in

section 6006 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency

Act [ISTEA], to compile, analyze, and make accessible information

on the Nation’s transportation systems, collect information on

intermodal transportation, and enhance the quality and effectiveness of the statistical programs of the Department of Transportation. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends a funding

level of $34,760,000, $3,760,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and $9,000,000 less than the President’s budget request.

Office of Airline Information.—Section 103(b) of the Wendell H.

Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century authorizes funding from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund for the

Office of Airline Information (OAI) within the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.

The Office of Airline Information collects and compiles financial

and traffic (passenger and cargo) data. This information provides

the Government with uniform and comprehensive economic and

market data on individual airline operations. This program includes a small field office located in Anchorage, AK, which provides

consumers and the Government with airline data related to essential air service and the intra-Alaskan mail rate program. The statistical aviation data compiled by OAI includes: airline passenger

traffic statistics, ontime performance data by carrier, financial performance and certification data, fuel purchase and consumption,

and other business and consumer directed statistics. The Committee provides $3,760,000 for the Office of Airline Information to

be derived from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund.

Bureau of Transportation Statistics safety data action plan.—The

Committee has denied BTS’s request for the agency’s safety data

action plan due to higher funding priorities in other critical areas.

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2001 ......................................................................... $28,000,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ...................................................................... 30,000,000,000

Committee recommendation ............................................................. 30,000,000,000

The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of

$30,000,000,000.
83

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2002 PROGRAM

In December 1999, the Congress passed the Motor Carrier Safety

Improvement Act (Public Law 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 preeminent mission of the FMCSA is to improve the safety

of commercial vehicle operations on the nation’s highways. A primary goal of the agency is to reduce the number of accidents and

fatalities due to truck accidents. FMCSA resources and activities

contribute to safety in commercial vehicle operations through enforcement, safety regulation, technological innovation, improvements in information systems, training, and improvements to commercial driver’s license testing, record keeping, and sanctions. To

achieve these goals, the FMCSA works with Federal, State, and

local enforcement agencies, the motor carrier industry, and highway safety organizations.

MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

The Motor Carrier Safety account provides for the salaries, operating expenses and research funding for the FMCSA. The Motor

Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) amended Section

104(a)(1) of title 23 to provide one-third of 1 percent of the administrative takedown to be made available to administer motor carrier

safety programs and motor carrier research. The administration’s

budget requests a takedown of two-thirds of 1 percent for these

purposes.

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $92,194,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 139,007,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 105,000,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $202,827 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554; and

does not reflect $375,000 obligation limitation transfer from FHWA.

The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the

budget request:

Deny BTS Safety Data Improvements ................................................. ¥$9,000,000

Reduce research and technology activities .......................................... ¥7,128,000

Transfer funding for crash data improvements, CDL program, and

hotline to FHWA ................................................................................ ¥11,000,000

Motor Carrier Research.—The Committee recommends

$7,000,000 for motor carrier research and technology, which is

$7,128,000 less than the amount requested. The amount provided

is funded under the section 104(a)(1)(A) takedown within the Federal Highway Administration.

Truck Drivers’ Fatigue management study.—Within the funds

provided, the Committee includes $400,000 for a study to determine the fatigue management techniques used by truck drivers

during overnight operations with an organization representing
84

unionized motor carriers in cooperation with their labor organization.

In Senate Report 106–55 and Senate Report 106–309, the Committee specified the information that it needed to review properly

the request for this R&T program. The fiscal year 2002 budget submittal fails to respond to these specifications and is inadequate to

justify a 40 percent increase in funds over the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. The Committee continues to seek a budget justification

for FMCSA’s R&T program that is of the same level of detail and

quality as that provided by other surface transportation agencies.

Highway Watch Program.—Within the amount provided for

motor carrier research, the Committee directs that not less than

$1,000,000 shall be made available to analyze, evaluate and expand

the Highway Watch program. The program is a national safety outreach initiative that trains professional truck drivers to recognize

and report a variety of incidents on the Nation’s highways.

Crash Causation and Data Analysis.—The Committee encourages FMSCA to make available the preliminary results of the crash

causation study as soon as a sufficiently large and representative

data set is analyzed. The preliminary as well as the final study will

help FMCSA prioritize its activities and will be relevant to future

legislation seeking to ensure that Federal investments are focused

on efforts to reduce the primary causes of commercial vehicle

crashes.

Within the funds provided, the Committee includes $100,000 for

the deployment and evaluation of a nation-wide ‘‘Share the Road

Safely’’ program. The program is targeted at urban and suburban

operators of passenger automobiles and truck drivers in cooperation with an organization representing unionized motor carriers in

cooperation with their labor organization.

Improvements Still Needed at FMCSA.—The Committee remains

concerned with the need for a strengthened motor carrier safety

program. There is no question that progress has been made toward

improving motor carrier safety since the agency was established as

a separate modal administration. FMCSA is conducting more compliance reviews (audits) and has claimed, per case and in total, an

increased level of financial penalties against companies judged to

be in probable violation of the safety regulations. Progress has also

been made on some key regulatory and strategic planning initiatives as well as the review of State CDL programs. The Committee,

however, remains concerned that the agency continues to allow

many other key safety initiatives to languish, and has not responded to several congressional directives and legal mandates in

a timely fashion. For example, the Committee has often noted the

deficiencies and loopholes the CDL program but the FMCSA has

not implemented all of the regulatory changes necessary to resolve

these deficiencies. The Department has not issued final regulations

regarding the establishment of a uniform program for State hazardous materials registration and permits as required by law. In

addition, FMCSA has not made progress on the training requirements for commercial drivers. The Committee expects the FMCSA

to make rapid progress in all of these areas at the soonest possible

time.
85

SAFETY OF CROSS-BORDER TRUCKING BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES

AND MEXICO

The North American Free Trade Agreement anticipated the initiation of cross-border trucking shipments between the United States

and Mexico. However, due to concerns over the safety of the Mexican trucking fleet, the Government of the United States opted not

to allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to transport cross-border

shipments beyond a limited commercial zone into the United

States. As recently as May 2000, testimony by the Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Administration maintained that Mexico did not have

a comprehensive and integrated safety oversight system in place

that would facilitate a decision on the part of the U.S. Government

to open the border. On February 6, 2001, an Arbitral Panel issued

its findings on the issue of Cross-Border Trucking. The Panel concluded the United States could not exclude all Mexican trucking

firms from crossing the border. Following the panels report, the

U.S. Administration announced its decision to allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to enter the United States sometime before

January 1, 2002.

The Arbitral Panel concluded that the United States cannot bar

all Mexican applicants from entering the United States. However,

the Arbitral Panel also found that, in view of the differences between the United States and Mexican regulatory regimens, the

United States did not have to treat applications from Mexican

based carriers in exactly the same manner as United States or Canadian firms. The Panel indicated that NAFTA did not restrict the

ability of the United States to implement measures to ensure Mexican trucking companies and Mexican truck drivers meet U.S. safety standards. The Arbitral Panel concluded:

‘‘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 regulations when operating in the United States. Nor does it require that Mexican-domiciled firms currently providing trucking services

in the United States be allowed to continue to do so, if and

when they fail to comply with U.S. safety regulations. The

United States may not be required to treat applications

from Mexican trucking firms in exactly the same manner as

applications from United States or Canadian firms, as long

as they are reviewed on a case-by-case basis. U.S. authorities are responsible for the safe operations of trucks within

U.S. territory, whether ownership is United States, Canadian or Mexican.’’ (emphasis added)

The Committee is greatly concerned that the Department of

Transportation’s plans to address the risks posed by some Mexicandomiciled motor carriers will not be sufficient to ensure the level

of safety on our highways the American people have come to expect. As demonstrated below, Mexican trucks that crossed the U.S.

border legally to serve the commercial zone surrounding and adjoining the United States border, have been ordered off the road by
86

U.S. Motor Carrier Inspectors 50 percent more frequently than

U.S. trucks. It is noteworthy to point out that the ‘‘out of service’’

rate for United States trucks lags behind that of Canadian trucks.

The Committee has reviewed several assessments of this problem

including reports filed by the Department of Transportation Inspector General as recently as May 2001, as well as assessments prepared by the Controller General, the Congressional Research Serv-
87

ice, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Recognizing the responsibility of the United States to fulfill its treaty obligations, the Committee has included a provision that will ensure

that those Mexico-domiciled motor carriers that enter the United

States will demonstrate a safety record at least equal to that of its

U.S. counterparts. The Committee has simultaneously provided

$103,200,000 for initiatives to enhance truck safety at the Mexican

Border. The amount provided is $15,000,000 more than the level

included in the President’s request. The funding provided includes: —$13,900,000 funded in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration limitation on administrative expenses to hire 80

additional truck safety inspectors; —$18,000,000 requested for enhanced Motor Carrier Safety

Grants for the border; and —$71,300,000 in funding for the construction and improvement

of Motor Carrier Safety Inspection facilities along the United

States-Mexico border.

As described below, the Committee provision seeks to ensure that

the resources necessary for a rigorous enforcement and safety program at the Mexican border will be in place prior to the border

being opened to Mexico-domiciled commercial motor vehicles. The

following describes the Committee’s specific concerns regarding the

Administration’s plan, followed by a description of the provision

that addresses each concern.

Absence of Border Inspectors

At present, Federal and State border inspectors

are on duty 24 hours-a-day at only 2 of 27 border

crossings. Mexican trucks crossing the border during

off hours are not subject to inspection.

The Committee provision requires the DOT to only

allow Mexican trucks to cross the border at inspection facilities where inspectors are present and onduty. [Note: ‘‘Mexican trucks’’ here, and hereafter in

this document, refer to Mexico-domiciled commercial

motor vehicles operating beyond the commercial

zone].

More Fully Trained Inspectors Needed

At present, the level of inspector resources is not

adequate to handle even the current level of limited

traffic from Mexican trucks—much less the influx of

trucks expected once the border is fully opened. It

takes anywhere from 6 months to a year to actually

hire and fully train a new safety inspector.

The Committee recommendation fully funds the

Administration’s request for 80 additional border inspectors. Moreover, the Committee provision prohibits the full opening of the border until the DOT

Inspector General certifies that all of these inspectors are fully trained as safety specialists capable

of conducting compliance reviews and that the Administration has not accomplished this goal by

transferring experienced inspectors elsewhere in the

country to the border so as to undermine the level

of inspection coverage and safety elsewhere in the

nation.

Inspection Plans Are Inadequate

The DOT plans to issue conditional operating certificates to Mexican trucking firms to enter the

United States based largely on the answers from a

questionnaire. The DOT will perform a full safety

audit of these firms within 18 months of the operating certificate being granted. The firm can operate

freely in the United States throughout this 18-month

period.

The Committee provision requires the DOT to perform a full safety audit of each Mexican trucking

firm before any conditional operating certificate is

granted and then perform a full follow-up compliance review again within 18 months before a permanent operating certificate can be granted.
88

Inspection Venue is Inadequate

The DOT is planning to perform its safety audits

of Mexican trucking firms at the border rather than

at each firm’s facilities. For both United States and

Canadian trucking firms, the DOT conducts compliance reviews at each firm’s facilities.

The Committee provision requires that all safety

audits of Mexican trucking firms take place on-site

at each firm’s facilities.

Mexican Trucks Have No Record Of Compliance with Hours-Of-Service

Only in the last few months has Mexico established hours-of-service rules and the vast majority of

Mexican truckers are exempt. As such, Mexican

truckers will have no experience with compliance

with such rules and U.S. inspectors will not know

how long a trucker has already been driving when

they arrive at the border.

The Committee provision prohibits the full opening of the border until the DOT Inspector General

certifies that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration has implemented a policy to ensure

compliance on the part of Mexican truckers with

pertinent hours-of-service rules. The DOT will be required to give a distinctive DOT number to all Mexican trucking firms operating beyond the commercial

zone to assist state inspectors in enforcing hoursof-service regulations as well as other Federal safety

rules.

Validity of Licenses Are Not Verifiable And Are Not Routinely Checked

Most border crossing inspection stations do not

even have telephone lines much less computer linkages to confirm that licenses and other documents

carried by Mexican truckers are valid. Many State inspectors do not routinely check the status and validity of the documents of Mexican drivers that are inspected at the roadside. This is true even where the

telephone or computer links do exist. The Mexican

computer databases regarding licenses are terribly

inadequate.

The Committee provision prohibits the full opening of the border until the DOT Inspector General

certifies that the information infrastructure of the

Mexican authorities is sufficiently accurate, accessible, and integrated with that of U.S. law enforcement authorities to allow U.S. authorities to verify

the status and validity of licenses, vehicle registration, operating authority, and insurance of Mexican

motor carriers while operating in the United States.

The Inspector General must also verify that adequate telephonic and computer links exist at all border crossings and in all mobile enforcement units

operating adjacent to the border to ensure the opportunity to verify the status and validity of these

documents. The DOT will require all Federal and

State inspectors to electronically verify the status

and validity of the documents of every Mexican truck

crossing the border.

Federally-Funded Inspectors Not Enforcing Federal Regulations

Even though most State truck inspectors are compensated largely with Federal tax dollars, many inspectors at the border do not enforce Federal registration regulations when they differ from State requirements. For example, only California inspectors

require Mexican trucks to show proof of operating

authority. Moreover, State inspectors, when they find

a deficiency that is a violation of Federal but not

State law, do not always refer the case to a Federal

inspector for enforcement.

The Committee provision prohibits the full opening of the border until the DOT requires that all

State inspectors funded in part or in whole with

Federal funds check for violations of Federal regulations. All violations detected by State inspectors of

Federal law will be either enforced by State inspectors or forwarded to Federal authorities for enforcement action.

Inadequate Facilities For Truck Inspections

At 70 percent of border crossings, motor carrier

inspectors currently have space to only inspect 1 or

2 trucks at a time. At more than half of the border

crossings, inspectors currently have only 1 or 2

spaces to park vehicles placed out of service, undermining their ability to order unsafe trucks off the

road.

The Committee provision prohibits the full opening of the border until the DOT Inspector General

has certified that there is adequate capacity to conduct a sufficient number of meaningful truck inspections to maintain safety.
89

Inadequate Capacity To Check Compliance With U.S. Weight Limitations

Mexican trucks are currently permitted to operate

in Mexico at axle and gross weights which are far

higher than U.S. standards. Overweight trucks pose

a greater safety risk to the driving public but there

is little if any infrastructure to weigh trucks at the

border.

The Committee provision prohibits the full opening of the border until the DOT has equipped all

Mexican border crossings with Weigh-In-Motion

(WIM) systems as well as fixed scales suitable for

enforcement action. The DOT will be required to

verify by either means the weight of all commercial

vehicles entering the United States.

Inadequate Data On Safety Record Of Mexican Trucking Firms and Drivers

Unlike the United States, Mexico does not currently have a comprehensive mechanism to collect

data on the safety record of Mexican trucking firms

and drivers.

The Committee provision prohibits the full opening of the border until the DOT Inspector General

certifies that there is an accessible database containing sufficiently comprehensive data to allow for

safety performance monitoring of all Mexican firms

applying for operating certificates and for all Mexican drivers that may enter the United States. Also,

the DOT IG must certify that measures are in place

similar to those in the United States to ensure that

Mexican drivers who lose their licenses cannot obtain another one through surreptitious means.

Critical Safety Rules Not In Place

DOT has rushed to implement the rules to allow

Mexican trucks to enter the United States. At the

same time, several safety-related rulemakings which

pertain to Mexican carriers and are required by law,

have not been finalized.

The Committee provision prohibits the full opening of the border until the DOT publishes in final

form the following overdue regulations:

—rules establishing minimum requirements for

motor carriers, including foreign motor carriers,

to ensure they are knowledgeable about Federal safety standards, including the administration of a proficiency exam;

—rules implementing measures to improve training and provide for the certification of motor

carrier safety auditors;

—rules requiring the development of staffing

standards to determine the appropriate number

of Federal and State motor carrier inspectors

for the Mexican border;

—rules prohibiting foreign motor carriers from

leasing their vehicles to another carrier to

transport products to the United States while

the firm is subjected to a suspension, restriction, or limitation on its right to operate in the

United States; and

—rules disqualifying permanently from operating

in the United States any foreign motor carrier

that is found to have operated illegally in the

United States.
90

NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRAM

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(Liquidation of contract authorization)(Limitation on

obligations)

Appropriations, 2001 ...................................................................... $177,000,000 1 $177,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 .................................................................. 204,837,000 204,837,000

Committee recommendation .......................................................... 204,837,000 204,837,000

1 Does 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 TEA21 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).

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 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 $204,837,000 in liquidating cash for

this program. This is an increase of $27,837,000 above the level enacted in fiscal year 2001.

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The Committee recommends a $204,837,000 limitation on obligations for motor carrier safety grants. This is the level authorized

under the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, which

amended TEA21. This funding level includes $22,837,000 in Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), as authorized under 23

U.S.C. 110, as amended.

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, to reduce the escalating

number of deaths, injuries, and economic costs resulting from traffic crashes on the Nation’s highways. The National Traffic and

Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides for the establishment and enforcement of Federal safety standards for motor vehicles and associated equipment and research, including the operation of required

testing facilities and the National Driver Register. The Motor Vehi-
91

cle Information and Cost Savings Act initially provided for the establishment of low-speed, collision bumper standards, consumer information activities, diagnostic inspection, and odometer regulations and was later amended to incorporate responsibility for the

administration of Federal automotive fuel economy standards.

The Highway Safety Act provides for a coordinated highway safety grant program to be carried out by the States, together with

supporting research, development, and demonstration programs.

Under section 403 of title 23, United States Code, technical assistance is provided to the States in the conduct of their highway safety programs, and research and demonstration projects are conducted to develop and show the effectiveness of new techniques and

countermeasures to address highway safety problems.

Grants are provided to the States under title 23, United States

Code, section 402 to assist in the establishment and improvement

of highway safety programs designed to reduce traffic crashes,

deaths, and injuries. Alcohol incentive grants are allocated to the

States for alcohol-impaired driver safety programs. The occupant

protection incentive grants program rewards States that implement

strong laws and programs to increase safety belt and child safety

seat use.

The following table summarizes the Committee recommendations:

Program Fiscal year 2001

enacted 1

Fiscal year 2002

estimate

Committee recommendation

Operations and research ............................................. $190,876,000 $196,000,000 $206,000,000

National driver register (HTF) ..................................... (2,000,000) (2,000,000) (2,000,000)

Highway traffic safety grants (firewall) ..................... 213,000,000 223,000,000 223,000,000

Total ............................................................... 403,876,000 419,000,000 429,000,000

1 Does not reflect reductions of $888,527 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

(INCLUDING HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

General Fund Trust Fund Total

Appropriations, 2001 ................................................... $116,876,000 $74,000,000 $190,876,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ............................................... 122,000,000 74,000,000 196,000,000

Committee recommendation ........................................ 132,000,000 74,000,000 206,000,000

For fiscal year 2002, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century (TEA21), as amended, authorizes $72,000,000 of contract

authority from the highway trust fund to finance operations and

research activities eligible under title 23 U.S.C. 403. This funding

is included within the firewall guarantee for highway spending and

is not subject to appropriation. The act also includes an authorization, subject to appropriations, from the highway trust fund of

$2,000,000 to maintain the National Driver Register. In addition,

the administration is requesting $122,000,000 for activities related

to sections 30104 and 32102 of title 49. This funding is derived

from the general fund and is subject to appropriations.
92

The Administration has submitted a budget request of $196,000,000 for NHTSA’s operations and research account. The budget request consists of $72,000,000 from the highway trust fund

guarantee for highway safety and research and analysis programs

and $2,000,000 from the highway trust fund for the National Driver Register.

The Committee recommends fully funding the authorized level,

and the accompanying bill provides appropriations totaling

$206,000,000 to be distributed as follows:

Committee

Program recommendation

Salaries and benefits ............................................................................. $61,471,000

Travel ...................................................................................................... 1,297,000

Operating expenses ............................................................................... 23,113,000

Contract Programs:

Safety performance ......................................................................... 7,891,000

Safety assurance ............................................................................. 15,064,000

Highway safety ............................................................................... 50,333,000

Research and analysis .................................................................... 57,338,000

General administration .................................................................. 643,000

Grant administration reimbursement .................................................. ¥11,150,000

Total ............................................................................................. 206,000,000

SALARIES AND BENEFITS

Staffing level.—The Committee recommends $61,471,000 for salaries and benefits, $4,341,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and $750,000 more than the President’s budget request.

The Committee includes an increase of $750,000 for 7.5 FTE’s in

the Safety Standards Support program to assist with the agency’s

regulatory agenda. The Committee approves 709 full time positions

for NHTSA and expects to see progress on the agency’s ability to

meet congressional mandates and deadlines.

SAFETY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Safety Standards Support.—The Committee recommends

$2,550,000 for safety standards support, $850,000 above the fiscal

year 2001 enacted level and $550,000 above the President’s budget

request. The Committee notes that NHTSA’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan sets a goal of reducing the number of highway-related injuries and fatalities by 20 percent by 2008. The data suggests, however, that the numbers are moving in the opposite direction. Last year, both the number and the rate of vehicle deaths and

injuries increased. The Committee believes that progress on

NHTSA’s regulatory agenda would make a significant contribution

to the achievement of the agency’s safety goals. The Committee has

included additional resources for the safety standard support program as well as additional staff as mentioned earlier in this report.

These increases are intended to expedite NHTSA’s actions on several key Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and to assist with

the agency’s implementation of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation (TREAD) Act.

While the Committee acknowledges that NHTSA has implemented some of the provisions in the TREAD Act, there remain

several key regulations in the areas of tire standards, child safety

restraints and dynamic rollover testing that are to be finalized next
93

year. There are other important motor vehicle safety rules that

have been neglected and need to be updated or issued. These include a revised roof crush standard to improve the current standard originally issued in 1971; a rollover stability standard to address the 10,000 passenger vehicle occupant deaths occurring annually as a result of rollover crashes; upgrading the 1971 Federal

safety standard for seat back strength; improvements in pedestrian

crash protection to reduce the aggressive quality of passenger vehicle front ends. The Committee expects NHTSA to utilize these additional resources to meet the regulatory deadlines set in the

TREAD Act and to make noticeable progress on the agency’s regulatory backlog.

To assist the Committee in its oversight function, the Administrator of NHTSA is directed to submit to the House and Senate

Committees on Appropriations a notification letter as soon as there

is a reasonable likelihood that the Agency will be unable to meet

any of the deadlines specified in the TREAD Act. NHTSA’s Administrator also is directed to submit a strategic implementation plan

to both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with

the submission of the President’s fiscal year 2003 budget, specifying the timetable, milestones to be accomplished, and supporting

research (if applicable) for each of the provisions of the TREAD

Act. The plan should identify research projects, regulatory actions,

information gathering efforts, and public information activities, as

well as associated fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 funding

amounts relevant to each of the provisions of the TREAD Act.

HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the

budget request:

Occupant protection:

Enhance public education materials ............................................. ∂$1,000,000

Increase local efforts to increase belt use ..................................... ∂2,000,000

Impaired Driving ................................................................................... ∂2,700,000

Highway Safety Research: Safe mobility for older drivers ................. ∂1,000,000

New/Emerging/TEA–21 Issues: Cell phones and driver distraction∂1,000,000

Traffic Law Enforcement: Technologies to reduce speeding and aggressive driving .................................................................................. ∂1,000,000

Occupant Protection Enhancements.—The Committee is concerned that NHTSA is making insufficient progress toward reaching the goal of achieving a 90 percent national seat belt use rate

by 2005. In fact, over the last 4 years, seat belt use has only increased 2 percent to a total of 71 percent. To expedite the agency’s

progress, the Committee recommends $13,953,000 to improve

NHTSA’s occupant protection efforts, which is $3,000,000 more

than the amount requested in the President’s budget. Consistent

with the recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Panel to Increase

Seat Belt Use Among African Americans, NHTSA is expected to enhance its public education activities pertaining to occupant protection. This work will include the development and deployment of

credible, positive, culturally appropriate health and safety values

in media messages and literature to increase occupant protection

by minority groups. Research shows that minorities are over-represented in motor vehicle crashes and these populations are less
94

likely to wear seat belts or use child safety seats. For example,

black children ages 5 through 12 face a risk of dying in a crash

that is almost three times as great as white children. As the relative percentage of minorities increases, the need to better educate

all segments of the population about the importance of occupant

protection increases. Also, NHTSA should intensify its efforts to increase occupant protection use rates by the Hispanic population, as

well as other high risk groups, such as younger drivers and occasional users of seat belts.

Last year, the Committee initiated a new effort to increase local

government participation in promoting occupant protection activities. There has been definitive interest in this initiative and it

should be expanded. The Selective Traffic Enforcement Program

(STEP) has been shown to increase seat belt use rates and has

been widely tested. Past NHTSA studies show that strong local

leadership and coordination of activities are essential to conducting

successful STEP activities. The Committee’s allowance includes

$2,000,000 to further deploy the STEP process as well as other innovative strategies by local governments seeking to increase seat

belt use rates in their jurisdiction. NHTSA is directed to publically

advertise the availability of these funds and to seek a wide range

of applicants. In addition, the Committee has included bill language which would allow States to use traffic safety grants for public service messages as well as designate $15,000,000 for the use

of public safety messages during Operation ABC Mobilizations. A

more detailed discussion of these public safety message initiatives

is included in the NHTSA bill language section of this report.

Older Driver Initiative.—The Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 in Highway Safety Research to strengthen NHTSA’s efforts to promote the safe mobility of older Americans. Federal data

show that, while driving-related fatalities have decreased for all

other age groups over the past 20 years, the rate for elderly drivers

over 75 years has grown from 9.5 deaths to 14.3 deaths per 100,000

population—an increase of roughly 50.5 percent. Experts are now

predicting that without corrective action, by 2030, the number of

older persons killed in automobile crashes will increase three-fold.

The additional funds will improve methodologies to better assess

the capabilities of older drivers, and analyze ways to rehabilitate

older Americans who have suffered strokes or other medical problems to resume some or all of their driving, if medically qualified.

Cellphones and driver distraction.—The Committee provides an

increase of $1,000,000 for Emerging Traffic Safety Issues in support of NHTSA’s research to understand the factors that affect a

driver’s performance while using various in-vehicle technologies.

The Committee also supports the development of test procedures

and guidelines that can be used to design equipment that minimizes driver distraction. Research on how driver age and experience affects driver distraction also should be vigorously pursued.

Sufficient funds to conduct a comprehensive research program are

provided in the National Intelligent Transportation Systems Program in the FHWA, and in the research and analysis component

of NHTSA’s budget. While this research is ongoing, the Committee

maintains that both drivers and passengers could benefit from information on the potential safety risks that can arise from various
95

forms of driver distraction and overload. The public dissemination

of information on this topic is time critical because the rate of deployment of these technologies is outpacing the knowledge of their

impact on safety. The Committee directs NHTSA to submit a letter

before January 1, 2002, to both the House and Senate Committees

on Appropriations outlining the scope and direction of its efforts to

provide relevant consumer and public information relevant to this

safety challenge.

Improved Technologies to Reduce Speeding and Aggressive Driving.—The Committee provides an increase of $1,000,000 for

NHTSA’s Traffic Law Enforcement Program. Various technologies,

such as ITS, photo radar, and other electronic devices, can be used

to alert law enforcement agencies to speeding or aggressive driving.

NHTSA is expected to explore opportunities to advance and deploy

such technologies. Funding should be provided to one or more State

and local enforcement agencies to test approaches on secondary

roads as well as on interstates.

Impaired Driving.—The Committee recommends $12,517,000 for

NHTSA’s impaired driving program, which is $2,700,000 more than

the President’s budget request. The additional funds will be used

primarily to help States and communities control repeat impaired,

driving offenders. The agency will conduct a nationwide program to

inform State and local governments, law enforcement agencies, and

courts of the latest proven strategies for detection, arrest, prosecution, sentencing, and rehabilitation, including in-vehicle alcohol

interlocks, home confinement techniques, and driver identification

systems. The Committee envisions that the agency will explore

whether technology transfer vans similar to those successfully used

by the FHWA, could be an important part of this information program. The demonstration of best practices and peer-to-peer assistance should be emphasized. The agency may award up to one-half

of the funds as small grants to assist States and communities that

wish to implement promising new strategies.

Emergency Medical Services.—The Committee recommends

$2,245,000 for emergency medical services. Within the funds provided, the Committee includes $1,000,000 to continue training EMS

personnel in delivering pre-hospital care to patients with traumatic

brain injuries. The Committee urges NHTSA to continue this national roll-out with the Brain Trauma Foundation and its Centers

of Excellence. The Centers will continue research into pre- and

post-training data collection and evaluation of the efficacy of the

Brain Trauma Foundation’s Pre-hospital Traumatic Brain Injury

guidelines. The funding will help NHTSA’s Emergency Medical

Services significantly decrease mortality and morbidity due to severe head injury throughout the United States while reducing inhospital time and costs, by ensuring that scientific based procedures are being used in ambulances. The Committee expects to see

a broader array of participation in the use of these EMS protocols.

Driver Behavior/Simulation Research.—The Committee includes

$3,450,000 for driver behavior/simulation research as requested in

the President’s budget. The Committee supports NHTSA’s research

to understand the factors that affect a driver’s performance since

it is estimated that nearly 90 percent of all motor vehicle crashes

are the result of driver error.
96

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

Biomechanical research.—The Committee provides $2,500,000 to

continue research related to traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries caused by motor vehicle, motorcycle, and bicycle accidents at

the Injury Control Research Center and encourages NHTSA to expand this research effort to the other centers of the Southern Consortium for Injury Biomechanics.

Brake lining friction study.—The Committee is aware that

NHTSA has issued regulations regarding stopping performance of

medium and heavy duty trucks. The Committee understands that

to remain in compliance with these rules, replacement brake lining

must have the same friction rating as that of the original brake lining. The Committee further understands that a uniform method for

measuring brake lining friction and permanently marking the lining with that rating is unavailable and thus directs NHTSA to perform research into rating brake lining friction and permanently

marking the lining with that rating. Within the funds provided, the

Committee provides $300,000 for research into the rating of brake

lining friction in order to facilitate a rulemaking in this area.

NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER

HIGHWAY TRUST FUND

The National Driver Register [NDR] is a central repository of information on individuals whose licenses to operate a motor vehicle

have been revoked, suspended, canceled, or denied. The NDR also

contains information on persons who have been convicted of serious

traffic-related violations such as driving while impaired by alcohol

or other drugs. State driver licensing officials query the NDR when

individuals apply for a license, for the purpose of determining

whether driving privileges have been withdrawn by other States.

Other organizations such as the Federal Aviation Administration

and the Federal Railroad Administration also use NDR license data

in hiring and certification decisions in overall U.S. transportation

operations. The bill includes $2,000,000 for the NDR from the highway trust

fund.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $213,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 223,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 223,000,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $468,000 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century authorized

the following State grant programs: Highway Safety Program, the

Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grant Program, the Occupant Protection Incentive Grant Program, and the

State Highway Safety Data Grant Program. Under the Highway

Safety Program, grant allocations are determined on the basis of a

statutory formula established under 20 U.S.C. 402. Individual
97

States use this funding in national priority areas established by

Congress which have the greatest potential for achieving safety improvements and reducing traffic crashes, fatalities, and injuries.

Also, the national occupant protection survey shall be funded from

within this amount. The Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grant Program encourages States to enact

stiffer laws and implement stronger programs to detect and remove

impaired drivers from the roads. The occupant protection program

encourages States to promote and strengthen occupant protection

initiatives. The State Highway Safety Data Grants Program encourages States to improve their collection and dissemination of important highway safety data.

The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation of contract authorization of $223,000,000 for the payment of obligations incurred in carrying out provisions of these grant programs.

The Committee has included a provision prohibiting the use of

section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or remodeling

costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for State, local, or private buildings or structures.

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The bill includes language limiting the obligations to be incurred

under the various highway traffic safety grants programs. Separate

obligation limitations are included in the bill with the following

funding allocations:

Fiscal year 2001

enacted 1

Fiscal year 2002

estimate

Committee recommendation

Highway safety programs ........................................ $154,659,000 $160,000,000 $160,000,000

Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures

grants .................................................................. 35,921,000 38,000,000 38,000,000

Occupant protection incentive grants ..................... 12,971,000 15,000,000 15,000,000

State highway safety data grants .......................... 8,980,000 10,000,000 10,000,000

Total ........................................................... 212,531,000 223,000,000 223,000,000

1 Reflects reduction of $468,600 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

BILL LANGUAGE

Public safety messages.—The bill contains a provision (sec. 338)

extending the authority for States to use traffic safety grant funds

under Section 402 to produce and place highway safety pubic service messages in television, radio, cinema, print media and on the

Internet. This same provision was included in the fiscal year 2001

enacted bill. This year, the Committee includes additional language

which would designate $15,000,000 of the safety belt use innovative grant funds to be used for public safety messages to support

the Operation ABC (America Buckles up Children) Mobilizations

that are conducted each year in May and November. During recent

mobilization efforts, more than 10,000 law enforcement agencies in

all 50 States have joined together to call attention to the need for

increased safety belt and child safety seat use and to deter drunk

driving. The Mobilizations have been effective in helping to increase restraint use, but there are still too many unrestrained children and adults that are killed and injured in vehicle crashes,
98

many of which are caused by drunk drivers. Last year, the Committee directed NHTSA to implement an innovative demonstration

program to promote seat belt usage. A pilot project in South Carolina in November 2000 used public safety messages to support the

Mobilization, resulting in an increase in safety belt use from 65

percent to nearly 74 percent. In carrying out this advertising program, NHTSA is encouraged to continue to work through non-profit

safety organizations on this initiative.

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2002 PROGRAM

The Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] became an operating

administration within the Department of Transportation on April

1, 1967. It incorporated the Bureau of Railroad Safety from the

Interstate Commerce Commission, the Office of High Speed Ground

Transportation from the Department of Commerce, and the Alaska

Railroad from the Department of the Interior. The Federal Railroad

Administration is responsible for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad industry. Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and other financial assistance programs to rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry’s physical

infrastructure are also administered by the Federal Railroad Administration.

The Committee recommends $755,578,000 for the activities of the

Federal Railroad Administration for fiscal year 2002. This is

$48,535,000 more than the budget request.

The following table summarizes the Committee recommendations:

Program

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2001 enacted 1 2002 budget

estimate 2

Safety and operations 3 ......................................... $101,717,000 $111,357,000 $111,357,000

Railroad research and development ..................... 25,325,000 28,325,000 30,325,000

Next generation high-speed rail ........................... 25,100,000 25,100,000 40,000,000

Alaska railroad rehabilitation 4 ............................. 30,000,000 ........................... 20,000,000

West Virginia Rail Development ............................ 15,000,000 ........................... ...........................

Rhode Island rail development ............................. 17,000,000 ........................... ...........................

Capital grants to National Railroad Passenger

Corporation ........................................................ 521,476,000 521,476,000 521,476,000

Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project ....... 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000

National Rail Development and Rehabilitation .... ........................... ........................... 12,000,000

Amtrak Reform Council 5 ....................................... 750,000 785,000 420,000

Total budgetary resources ....................... 756,368,000 707,043,000 755,578,000

1 Does not include reduction of $1,642,009 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554. 2 Fiscal year 2002 budget estimate includes $55,000,000 proposed rail safety user fees.

3 Does not include $1,500,000 in Maglev funds from other accounts.

4 Fiscal year 2001 includes $10,000,000 transferred from USAF.

5 The Amtrak Reform Council is an independent oversight commission. Funding is provided through a general provision,

and is not part of the FRA budget.
99

User fees.—The Committee denies the Administration’s legislative proposal to impose user fees on rail safety and research services.

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2001 1 2 ......................................................................... $101,717,000

Budget estimate, 2002 3 ......................................................................... 111,357,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 111,357,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $223,777 pursuant to section 1403 of Public law 106–554. 2Does not include $1,500,000 maglev funds from other accounts.

3 Includes $41,000,000 proposed rail safety user fees.

The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA rail

safety activities and all other administrative and operating activities related to staff and programs.

Operation Lifesaver.—The Committee notes that the Department’s ‘‘Grade Crossing Safety Action Plan’’ established a goal of

reducing the number of crossing collisions and trespass casualties

by 50 percent in 2004. One of the agency’s partners in this effort

has been Operation Lifesaver, Inc. which is a national, non-profit

education and awareness program that focuses on eliminating collisions, fatalities and injuries at highway-rail grade crossings. Operation Lifesaver utilizes education to increase public awareness; promotes enforcement of highway-rail grade crossing traffic laws; and,

encourages engineering research and innovation to improve the

safety at grade crossings. The Committee includes $1,025,000 for

Operation Lifesaver.

Staffing increases.—The FRA has requested 26 new positions in

fiscal year 2002. The Committee recommendation approves the

funding request for these additional positions.

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $25,325,000

Budget estimate, 2002 2 ......................................................................... 28,325,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 30,325,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $55,715 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554. 2 Includes $14,000,000 proposed user fees.

The Federal Railroad Administration’s Railroad Research and

Development Program provides for research in the development of

safety and performance standards for high-speed rail and the evaluation of their role in the Nation’s transportation infrastructure.

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $30,325,000 for

railroad research and development, $2,000,000 more than the administration’s requested level.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the following funding levels for the

Railroad research and development programs:

Equipment, operations, and hazardous materials research ............... $12,950,000

Track and vehicle-track interaction ..................................................... 9,900,000

Railroad systems safety and security ................................................... 6,150,000

R&D facilities and equipment .............................................................. 1,325,000

Equipment, operation, and hazardous materials research.—The

Committee recommends a program funding level of $12,950,000.
100

Southeastern Transportation Safety Center.—The Committee

notes that the Southeastern Transportation Safety Center in Meridian, MS is an important regional safety training resource helping the region’s emergency response community to focus on techniques and skills essential to rail passenger emergency response.

Training at the Center emphasizes instruction in advanced techniques for fire suppression, passenger rescue, law enforcement or

emergency medical situations. The Committee provides $475,000

within the funds available to enhance the center’s facilities and capabilities in advanced and specialized passenger rescue training for

emergency responders and carrier employees. These enhancements

should include a fully functional rail-highway grade crossing, and

a specially constructed low rail trestle and pond for rail passenger

water rescue training.

Track and Vehicle Track Interaction.—The Committee recommends $9,900,000 for track and vehicle track interaction,

$1,618,000 more than the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and

$1,000,000 more than the President’s budget request. The Committee’s recommendation includes funding for track and components

safety research in material and rail inspection and bridge safety

and for vehicle/track interaction safety standards research. Within

these funds, the Committee provides $2,000,000 in continued support for the Marshall University/University of Nebraska safety research projects in the areas of human factors, equipment defects,

railroad track and structures and failures associated with existing

train control methods. Also, within available funds, the Committee

includes $2,000,000 for a pilot program of the Integrated Railway

Remote Information Service at the Transportation Technology Center. This pilot program is expected to enjoy substantial industry

matching contributions. It is designed to demonstrate the feasibility of using defect detectors across North America. These detectors will measure safety parameters such as the forces between the

wheels and rails, and physical condition of axle bearings on rail vehicles. The Integrated Railway Remote Information Service is an

internet-based system designed to aggregate, interrogate and store

data from these field-deployed detector systems.

Railroad systems safety and security.—The Committee recommends a program funding level of $6,150,000, $1,000,000 more

than the administration’s request.

Illinois Grade Crossing Safety.—The Committee is supportive of

an innovative project in Illinois, designed to establish a comprehensive strategy to help the State of Illinois and local communities to

address rail-grade crossing safety through voluntary, cooperative

education and enforcement initiatives. This project, under the leadership of the Illinois Commerce Commission, also seeks to increase

awareness of and participation in private, State, and Federal programs that are designed to improve crossing safety and to identify

appropriate State and Federal resources that may aid communities

in their efforts. The Committee includes $1,000,000 for this effort.

Railroad freight congestion analysis.—The Committee is aware of

the significant delays currently affecting railroad freight in and

around Chicago, Illinois. It is not uncommon for freight trains to

take 72 hours or more to move cargo through the metropolitan

area. The Committee directs the Secretary, in cooperation with the
101

Federal Railroad Administration Administrator and the Chair of

the Surface Transportation Board, to prepare a comprehensive

analysis of the railroad freight congestion problems in the Chicago

region, including possible administrative and legislative solutions

and report the complete findings to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than January 15, 2002.

Passenger rail studies.—The Committee includes $250,000 to conduct a feasibility study of constructing a passenger rail, high-speed

rail or other passenger surface transportation system on a statewide basis. In particular, the study will evaluate the demand and

needs of commuters along the existing infrastructure in the Lincoln

and Omaha corridor in Nebraska. The results of the feasibility

study will serve as the basis for developing short-term and longterm implementation plans for commuter services. The Committee

also includes $300,000 to study the feasibility of linking WilkesBarre, Pennsylvania to the proposed Scranton-New York passenger

rail line. The Committee also includes $100,000 to be transferred

to Amtrak to conduct an analysis to determine the cost and feasibility of implementing high-speed intercity rail service between Los

Angeles and Las Vegas. The study will include an assessment of

existing capacity and the identification of infrastructure improvements necessary to increase capacity, allow for improved train

speeds, and reduce trip time.

RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING PROGRAM

Section 502 of Public Law 94–210, as amended authorizes obligation guarantees for meeting the long-term capital needs of private

railroads. Railroads utilize this funding mechanism to finance

major new facilities and rehabilitation or consolidation of current

facilities. No appropriations or new loan guarantee commitments

are proposed in fiscal year 2002.

The Rail Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program, as

established in section 7203 of the Transportation Equity Act for the

21st Century [TEA21], will enable the Secretary of Transportation

to provide loans and loan guarantees to State and local governments, Government-sponsored authorities and corporations, railroads and joint ventures to acquire, improve, or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities, including track, bridges,

yards, and shops.

NEXT GENERATION HIGH-SPEED RAIL

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $25,100,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 25,100,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 40,000,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $55,220 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

The Committee has provided $40,000,000 in general fund appropriations for the High-Speed Ground Transportation [HSGT] Program, $14,900,000 more than the President’s budget request.

The Committee first provided funding for the Next Generation

High-Speed Rail [NGHSR] Program in fiscal year 1995. The program funds high-speed rail research, development, and technology

programs that are aimed at demonstrations to foster high-speed

passenger service on corridors throughout the country.
102

The Committee recommends the following funding levels for the

Next generation high-speed rail programs:

High-speed train control systems ......................................................... $11,000,000

High-speed non-electric locomotives ..................................................... 6,800,000

Grade crossing hazard mitigation ........................................................ 4,300,000

Track/structures technology .................................................................. 1,300,000

Corridor planning .................................................................................. 9,600,000

Magnetic levitation ................................................................................ 7,000,000

High-speed train control systems.—The Committee has provided

a total of $11,000,000 for positive train control (PTC) systems and

demonstration projects. The Committee includes $5,000,000 to design, construct and test a PTC system in the Milwaukee-Madison

corridor. This work will include engineering, applied research and

development to demonstrate the implementation of a positive train

control system on a non-signaled railroad corridor segment between

Milwaukee and Madison, Wisconsin.

Grade crossing hazard mitigation/low-cost innovative technologies.—The Committee recommends $4,300,000 for grade crossing hazard mitigation and low-cost innovative technology initiatives. Within these funds, the Committee includes $700,000 for the

North Carolina Sealed Corridor Initiative which has been highly effective at identifying and implementing cost-effective tools to reduce hazards at highway-rail grade crossings.

Corridor planning.—The Committee includes $9,600,000 for passenger rail corridor planning. Within the funds provided, the Committee includes the following allocations:

Gulf Coast high-speed rail corridor ...................................................... $600,000

Florida high-speed rail between Orlando and Tampa ........................ 4,500,000

California high-speed rail ..................................................................... 4,500,000

Magnetic levitation transportation.—A total of $7,000,000 has

been provided for magnetic levitation activities to be distributed as

follows:

Segmented Rail Phased Induction: Electric Magnetic Motor (Seraphim) technology, NM ........................................................................ $500,000

Washington-Baltimore, MD: Environmental impact studies and

preliminary engineering .................................................................... 2,000,000

Nevada-California: Environmental impact studies, design and engineering ................................................................................................ 2,000,000

Greensburgh-Pittsburgh, PA: Environmental impact study .............. 2,500,000

Rail-highway crossing hazard eliminations.—Section 1103 of the

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) provides

$5,250,000 for the elimination of rail-highway crossing hazards. Of

these set-aside funds, the following allocations are made:

Gulf Coast high-speed rail corridor ...................................................... $2,000,000

Chicago Hub high-speed rail corridor between Milwaukee and

Madison, WI ....................................................................................... 500,000

ALASKA RAILROAD REHABILITATION

Appropriations, 2001 1 2 ......................................................................... $30,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... ...........................

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,000,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $44,000 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554. 2 Includes $10,000,000 transferred from USAF pursuant to section 8107 of Public Law 106–

259.
103

The Committee has included a total of $20,000,000 for rail safety

and infrastructure improvements benefiting passenger operations

of the Alaska railroad. This railroad extends 498 miles from Seward through Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska, to the city of

Fairbanks, and east to the town of North Pole and Eielson Air

Force Base. It carries both passengers and freight, and provides a

critical transportation link for passengers and cargo traveling

through difficult terrain and harsh climatic conditions.

NATIONAL RAIL DEVELOPMENT AND REHABILITATION

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. ...........................

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... ...........................

Committee recommendation ................................................................. $12,000,000

The bill authorizes the Federal Railroad Administration to make

grants and enter into contracts for the development and rehabilitation of freight and passenger rail infrastructure. The Committee includes $12,000,000 for this program. Within these funds, the Committee recommends $1,700,000 for the Central Valley Rail line

project to establish a short line from Sigurd/Salina to the Union

Pacific main line at Levan, Utah; $5,000,000 for the design and

construction of a passenger rail station at the General Mitchell

International Airport in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; $3,000,000 for

track relocation, track construction and grade crossing separation

in Greenwood, MS; and $2,300,000 for the rehabilitation of the

Minnesota Valley Regional Rail Authority.

CAPITAL GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER

CORPORATION (AMTRAK)

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $521,476,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 521,476,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 521,476,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $1,142,247 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

For fiscal year 2002, the administration has requested an appro- priation of $521,476,000 for Amtrak capital funding with the same

flexibility in spending its capital grant as provided to transit grantees.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $521,476,000 for Amtrak capital grants for fiscal year 2002. The amount provided is the

same as the President’s request and the same as the fiscal year

2001 appropriation. Consistent with the Administration’s budget

request, the Committee grants Amtrak the authority to use all of

this funding immediately upon the enactment of the bill.

The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (ARAA), Public Law 105–134, authorized a total of $5,200,000,000 over a 5 year

period in funding for Amtrak. The act also required the railroad to

reach operating self-sufficiency by fiscal year 2003. Together with

the funding included in the Committee recommendation, Amtrak

will have received $2,200,000,000 of the $5,200,000,000 authorized

by the end of 2002.

During the authorization period covered by the ARAA, Amtrak

has made steady progress in its goal of achieving operating self-suf-
104

ficiency. Its overall ridership and ticket revenues during this period

have continued to grow. Amtrak’s ridership has increased 14.4 percent between 1996 and 2000. It is expected to grow another 6 percent in 2001. Over the same period, Amtrak’s ticket revenues increased 29.8 percent. Those revenues are expected to grow by another 10.9 percent in 2001. The Committee is pleased to see continued growth in Amtrak’s ticket revenues and ridership and expects

those revenues to continue to grow with the long delayed introduction of the Acela Express Service beginning in calender year 2002.
105

As part of its mission to achieve operating self-sufficiency, Amtrak has aggressively sought to increase its revenues from non-passenger operations. Such non-passenger revenue grew by more than

15 percent between 1999 and 2000. However, the amount of revenues in this area has not grown as fast as Amtrak’s business plan

had hoped.

At the same time as Amtrak’s overall revenues have increased,

costs have also increased. Operating expenses for the railroad grew

9.1 percent over the 1999–2000 level. The Committee is concerned

by testimony by the DOT Inspector General that Amtrak has yet

to fully define some of the cost saving measures that will be necessary if the railroad is to achieve its self-sufficiency goal. The

delay in the delivery of Amtrak’s Acela Express trainsets and the

associated delay in launching the Acela service has endangered

Amtrak’s overall finances. Just recently, Amtrak was required to

collateralize part of its assets in Penn Station, New York in order

to obtain $300,000,000 in operating funds for the current fiscal

year. The Committee is greatly concerned over Amtrak’s tenuous financial condition. In testimony before the Committee, the President of Amtrak testified that if the Committee fully funded the

President’s budget request of $521,476,000 as it has, there will be

no risk of Amtrak going bankrupt within the coming fiscal year.

Even so, the Committee will continue to carefully monitor Amtrak’s

financial condition as well as its efforts to achieve operating selfsufficiency by 2003.

AMTRAK REFORM COUNCIL

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $750,000

Budget estimate, 2002 2 ......................................................................... 785,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 420,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $1,650 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554. 2The Council is an independent entity. Its funding is presented within the FRA for display

purposes only.

The Committee recommends an appropriation of $420,000 for

necessary expenses of the Amtrak Reform Council [ARC]. Initial

funding for the ARC was provided in the fiscal year 1998 supplemental appropriations bill, Public Law 105–174; in the fiscal years

1999, 2000, and 2001 transportation appropriations acts, $450,000,

$750,000, and $750,000, respectively, was appropriated for the

Council. For fiscal year 2002, the administration has requested an

appropriation of $785,000. Because the Council is an independent

commission, the Committee’s appropriation is not provided within

the FRA’s budget, but is provided in a general provision (sec. 330)

of the bill.

The ARC was established by the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 [ARAA]. The Council consists of 11 members, including four Senate appointees, four House appointees, two Presidential appointees, and the Secretary of Transportation. Under the

ARAA, the responsibilities of the ARC include evaluating Amtrak’s

performance and making recommendations to Congress and Amtrak for achieving further cost containment, productivity improvements, and financial reforms. In addition, fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill language expanded the Council’s statutory respon-
106

sibilities to include its views on any routes or services that Amtrak’s route analysis data indicate should be closed or realigned.

The ARC is a temporary commission. 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 ARAA (though

the Council may make a finding before the end of the current authorization). If the ARC determines these goals cannot be met, they

must then submit a restructuring plan, and Amtrak must submit

a liquidation plan.

PENNSYLVANIA STATION REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $20,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 20,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,000,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $44,000 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

In 2000, an advance appropriation of $20,000,000 was provided

for each fiscal year 2001, 2002, and 2003. These funds support the

redevelopment of the Pennsylvania Station in New York City, including the renovation of the James A. Farley Post Office building

as a train station and commercial center, and basic upgrades to

Pennsylvania Station.

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2002 PROGRAM

The Federal Transit Administration was established as a component of the Department of Transportation by Reorganization Plan

No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968, which transferred most of the

functions and programs under the Federal Transit Act of 1964, as

amended (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The missions of the Federal Transit Administration are: to assist in the development of improved mass transportation facilities, equipment, techniques, and

methods; to encourage the planning and establishment of urban

and rural transportation services needed for economical and desirable development; to provide mobility for transit dependents in

both metropolitan and rural areas; to maximize productivity of

transportation systems; and to provide assistance to State and local

governments and their instrumentalities in financing such services

and systems.

The current authorization for the programs funded by the Federal Transit Administration is contained in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.

Under the Committee recommendation, a total program level of

$6,847,000,000 would be provided for the programs of the Federal

Transit Administration for fiscal year 2002, which is $100,000,000

more than the obligation limitation authorized under the mass

transit category in TEA21. This funding is comprised of

$1,449,200,000 in direct appropriations of general funds and

$5,397,800,000 in limitations on contract authority.

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations compared to fiscal year 2000 and the administration’s request:
107

[In thousands of dollars]

Program 2001 enacted 1 2002 estimate Committee

recommendation

Administrative expenses .................................. 64,000 67,000 67,000

Formula grants 2 .............................................. 3,294,000 3,592,000 3,592,000

University transportation research .................. 6,000 6,000 6,000

Transit planning and research ....................... 110,000 116,000 116,000

Capital investment grants 2 3 ......................... 2,700,500 2,841,000 2,941,000

Job access and reverse commute grants ....... 100,000 125,000 125,000

Total ................................................... 6,274,500 6,747,000 6,847,000

1 Does not reflect rescissions totaling $13,803,900 for the 0.22 percent rescission pursuant to section 1403 of Public

Law 106–554 and $1,646,816,709 in FHWA flex funding . 2 Fiscal year 2001 reflects transfer of $50,000,000 from Formula grants to Capital investment grants and $1,000,000

from Formula grants to the OIG pursuant to Public Law 106–346. 3 Fiscal year 2001 includes $4,500,000 direct appropriation pursuant to sections 1105, 1107, and 1123 of Public Law

106–554.

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

General fund Trust fund Total

Appropriations, 2001 1 ....................................................... $12,800,000 $51,200,000 $64,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ..................................................... 13,400,000 53,600,000 67,000,000

Committee recommendation .............................................. 13,400,000 53,600,000 67,000,000

1 Does not reflect rescission of $140,800 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

The Committee recommends a total of $67,000,000 in budget resources funds for administrative expenses.

FORMULA GRANTS

General fund Trust fund Total

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................... $618,000,000 $2,676,000,000 $3,294,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ......................................... 718,400,000 2,873,600,000 3,592,000,000

Committee recommendation .................................. 718,400,000 2,873,600,000 3,592,000,000

1 Reflects $50,000,000 transferred to capital investment grants and $1,000,000 transferred to the OIG; does not reflect

rescission of $7,246,800 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

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 non-urbanized areas (U.S.C. sec. 5311). In addition,

setasides 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. The Committee also recommends that $5,000,000 be provided for the Salt Lake City transit needs for the VIII Paralympiad for the Disabled. The Committee

intends that use of these funds be for the transportation systems

for athletes, media, spectators and other officials associated with

the VIII Paralympiad for the Disabled. Within the total funding level of $3,592,000,000 for fiscal year

2002, the statutory distribution of these formula grants is allocated

among these categories as follows:
108

Urbanized areas (sec. 5307) .................................................................. $3,220,601,506

Clean fuels (sec. 5308) ........................................................................... 50,000,000

Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310) ........................................................... 84,724,801

Nonurbanized areas (sec. 5311) ............................................................ 224,873,743

Over-the-Road Bus Program ................................................................. 6,950,000

Alaska railroad ...................................................................................... 4,849,950

Section 3007 of TEA21 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, urbanized formula 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 1 percent

of their annual formula grants on enhancements, which include

landscaping, public art, bicycle storage, and connections to parks.

The following table displays the State-by-State distribution of the

formula program funds within each of the program categories:

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, FISCAL YEAR 2002 GUARANTEED LEVEL APPORTIONMENT FOR

FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE)

State Section 5307

urbanized area

Section 5311

nonurbanized area

Section 5310 elderly and persons with disabilities

Total formula

programs

Alabama ................................................ $14,040,178 $5,344,661 $1,465,034 $20,849,873

Alaska ................................................... 1 7,619,647 797,004 203,762 8,620,413

American Samoa ................................... ........................ 113,598 53,101 166,699

Arizona .................................................. 36,086,127 2,339,752 1,287,919 39,713,798

Arkansas ............................................... 5,520,952 4,272,834 1,014,025 10,807,811

California .............................................. 518,704,526 10,428,595 8,077,729 537,210,850

Colorado ................................................ 40,928,704 2,226,089 991,811 44,146,604

Connecticut ........................................... 55,160,193 2,019,272 1,141,158 58,320,623

Delaware ............................................... 7,329,543 503,760 323,821 8,157,124

District of Columbia ............................. 29,256,884 ........................ 321,183 29,578,067

Florida ................................................... 156,776,788 6,703,961 5,440,466 168,921,215

Georgia .................................................. 55,198,599 7,814,463 1,909,167 64,922,229

Guam .................................................... ........................ 323,387 135,314 458,701

Hawaii ................................................... 25,789,482 877,054 420,603 27,087,139

Idaho ..................................................... 3,300,878 1,769,431 431,176 5,501,485

Illinois ................................................... 217,131,921 7,169,333 3,505,594 227,806,848

Indiana .................................................. 34,806,454 6,925,413 1,824,126 43,555,993

Iowa ...................................................... 9,303,320 4,454,494 1,092,507 14,850,321

Kansas .................................................. 8,541,490 3,543,409 910,746 12,995,645

Kentucky ................................................ 18,577,689 5,849,395 1,402,706 25,829,790

Louisiana .............................................. 29,765,457 4,837,873 1,407,347 36,010,677

Maine .................................................... 2,367,920 2,334,462 547,089 5,249,471

Maryland ............................................... 80,384,314 2,914,464 1,414,153 84,712,931

Massachusetts ...................................... 124,736,660 3,123,420 2,050,913 129,910,993

Michigan ............................................... 66,414,415 8,458,755 2,994,685 77,867,855

Minnesota ............................................. 38,624,294 4,867,525 1,434,541 44,926,360

Mississippi ............................................ 4,932,006 4,750,072 984,235 10,666,313

Missouri ................................................ 35,603,515 5,669,413 1,850,314 43,123,242

Montana ................................................ 2,497,778 1,433,378 392,963 4,324,119

Nebraska ............................................... 8,447,964 2,162,787 632,725 11,243,476

Nevada .................................................. 21,339,036 706,117 462,562 22,507,715

New Hampshire ..................................... 3,499,595 1,869,613 435,225 5,804,433
109

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, FISCAL YEAR 2002 GUARANTEED LEVEL APPORTIONMENT FOR

FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE)—Continued

State Section 5307

urbanized area

Section 5311

nonurbanized

area

Section 5310 elderly and persons with disabilities

Total formula

programs

New Jersey ............................................ 189,133,645 2,673,150 2,468,641 194,275,436

New Mexico ........................................... 7,078,357 2,101,501 552,626 9,732,484

New York ............................................... 546,166,788 9,409,809 5,762,287 561,338,884

North Carolina ...................................... 29,462,044 9,995,997 2,175,630 41,633,671

North Dakota ......................................... 2,434,856 1,060,047 329,769 3,824,672

Northern Marianas ................................ ........................ 105,272 52,833 158,105

Ohio ....................................................... 92,258,624 10,176,620 3,659,887 106,095,131

Oklahoma .............................................. 11,565,275 4,350,400 1,206,115 17,121,790

Oregon ................................................... 29,577,270 3,454,256 1,119,077 34,150,603

Pennsylvania ......................................... 148,792,087 11,352,125 4,394,371 164,538,583

Puerto Rico ........................................... 52,797,914 3,392,373 1,059,960 57,250,247

Rhode Island ......................................... 10,331,636 434,568 483,450 11,249,654

South Carolina ...................................... 11,616,676 5,003,046 1,164,780 17,784,502

South Dakota ........................................ 1,756,431 1,292,115 358,657 3,407,203

Tennessee ............................................. 23,225,955 6,458,361 1,735,610 31,419,926

Texas ..................................................... 170,177,230 13,635,398 4,539,494 188,352,122

Utah ...................................................... 20,796,268 979,495 512,817 22,288,580

Vermont ................................................. 882,731 1,155,262 290,967 2,328,960

Virgin Islands ....................................... ........................ 247,264 138,096 385,360

Virginia ................................................. 66,268,007 5,725,963 1,806,838 73,800,808

Washington ........................................... 88,572,612 4,012,110 1,617,182 94,201,904

West Virginia ........................................ 4,255,733 3,411,450 842,548 8,509,731

Wisconsin .............................................. 38,268,062 5,894,585 1,651,726 45,814,373

Wyoming ................................................ 1,219,667 824,424 242,740 2,286,831

Subtotal ................................... 3,209,324,197 223,749,375 84,724,801 3,517,798,373

Oversight ............................................... 16,127,259 1,124,368 ........................ 17,251,627

Total ........................................ 3,225,451,456 224,873,743 84,724,801 3,535,050,000

Clean Fuels ........................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 50,000,000

Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility .......... ........................ ........................ ........................ 6,950,000

Grand Total ............................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 3,592,000,000

1 Includes $4,825,700 for the Alaska Railroad.

Over-the-road buses.—The Committee has included $6,950,000 in

fiscal year 2002 for the over-the-road accessibility program. These

funds are intended to assist over-the-road bus operators in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility requirements. Additionally, the Committee has included bill language

(sec. 339) expanding the exemption from Federal axle weight restrictions that apply only to public transit passenger buses to all

over-the-road buses. The Committee is aware that over-the-road

buses, like urban transit buses, have been carrying progressively

more weight on each axle due to the requirements necessary to accommodate safety, environmental and accessibility concerns. Transit buses received an exemption from axle weight requirements in

1991, the Committee believes that the over-the-road bus industry

should receive equal consideration. Last year, the Committee included language providing a similar axle weight exemption for
110

over-the-road buses. The bill also requires a study on the applicability of maximum weight limitation to both over-the-road buses

and public transit vehicles is directed to be submitted to Congress

no later than 18 months after enactment of this Act.

UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

General fund Trust fund Total

Appropriations, 2001 1 ....................................................... $1,200,000 $4,800,000 $6,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ..................................................... 1,200,000 4,800,000 6,000,000

Committee recommendation .............................................. 1,200,000 4,800,000 6,000,000

1 Does not reflect rescission of $13,200 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

Section 5505 of TEA21 provides authorization for the university

transportation research program. The purpose of the university

transportation research program is to become a national resource

and focal point for the support and conduct of research and training concerning the transportation of passengers and property.

Funds provided under the FTA university transportation research

program are transferred to and managed by the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), combined with a transfer

from the Federal Highway Administration of $26,500,000. The

transit university transportation research program funds are statutorily available only to the following universities: University of

Minnesota, Northwestern University, Morgan State University, and

North Carolina State University.

The Committee action provides $6,000,000 for the university

transportation research program, the same level as provided in fiscal year 2001.

TRANSIT PLANNING AND RESEARCH

General fund Trust fund Total

Appropriations, 2001 1 ....................................................... $22,200,000 $87,800,000 $110,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 2 ................................................... 23,000,000 93,000,000 116,000,000

Committee recommendation .............................................. 23,000,000 93,000,000 116,000,000

1 Does not reflect rescission of $242,000 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554 and $54,280,827 in FHWA

flex funding transferred to FTA.

The Committee action provides $116,000,000 for transit planning

and research. The bill contains language specifying that

$55,422,400 shall be available for the metropolitan planning program; $5,250,000 for the rural transit assistance program;

$31,500,000 for the national planning and research program;

$11,577,600 for the State planning and research program;

$8,250,000 for transit cooperative research; and $4,000,000 for the

National Transit Institute at Rutgers University.

The following table summarizes the Committee recommendation:

Fiscal year— Committee

recommendation 2001 program

level 1

2002 budget

estimate

Metropolitan planning ............................................................. $52,113,600 $55,422,400 $55,422,400

Rural transit assistance program ........................................... 5,250,000 5,250,000 5,250,000
111

Fiscal year— Committee

recommendation 2001 program

level 1

2002 budget

estimate

State planning and research program ................................... 10,886,400 11,577,600 11,577,600

Transit cooperative research program .................................... 8,250,000 8,250,000 8,250,000

National Transit Institute ........................................................ 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000

National planning and research program .............................. 29,500,000 31,500,000 31,500,000

Total ........................................................................... 110,000,000 116,000,000 116,000,000

1 Fiscal year 2001 does not reflect rescission of $242,000 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554 and

$54,280,827 in FHWA flex funding transferred to FTA.

NATIONAL PLANNING AND RESEARCH PROGRAM

The Committee recommendation includes transit planning and

research grants from the national program that were authorized in

section 3012 of the Transportation Equity Act for Fiscal Year 2001:

Project ACTION ..................................................................................... $3,000,000

Support in fiscal year 2002 is also provided for a number of important initiatives and Federal Transit Administration priorities,

including:

North Dakota State University transit center for small urban

areas .................................................................................................... $400,000

Georgia Regional Transportation Authority/Southern California Association of Governments transit trip planning partnership .......... 500,000

Center for Composites Manufacturing ................................................. 1,100,000

Electric Transit Vehicle Institute (ETVI) outreach and research activities ................................................................................................. 500,000

Washington State WestStart innovative transit vehicle initiative .... 2,000,000

West Virginia transit vehicle exhaust emissions evaluation initiative ....................................................................................................... 1,400,000

Missouri Soybean Association biodiesel transit demonstration ......... 1,000,000

Dollar coin fare study.—Within the funds provided, the Committee directs the Administrator to conduct a study on the benefits

and feasibility of having large transit and toll road systems use

fare card or coin technology that recognizes and accepts the

Sacagawea Dollar Coins by April 1, 2002.

TRUST FUND SHARE OF EXPENSES

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $5,016,600,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 5,397,800,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,397,800,000

For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided $5,397,800,000

in liquidating cash for the trust fund share of transit expenses associated with the following programs: administrative expenses, formula grants, university transportation research, transit planning

and research, job access and reverse commute grants, and capital

investment grants. This level of funds is equal to the total budget

authority from the highway trust fund inside the transit firewall

as outlined in the transportation discretionary spending guarantee

subtitle of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.
112

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

General funds Trust funds Total

Appropriations, 2001 1 ................................................. $579,200,000 $2,121,300,000 $2,700,500,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ............................................... 568,200,000 2,272,800,000 2,841,000,000

Committee recommendation ........................................ 668,200,000 2,272,800,000 2,941,000,000

1 Includes $50,000,000 transferred from formula grants pursuant to Public Law 106–346; also includes $4,500,000

Trust Fund direct appropriation pursuant to sections 1105, 1107, and 1123 of Public Law 106–554, does not reflect rescission of $5,941,100 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

Section 5309 of 49 U.S.C. authorizes discretionary grants or

loans to States and local public bodies and agencies thereof to be

used in financing mass transportation investments. Investments

may include construction of new fixed guideway systems and extensions to existing guideway systems; major bus fleet expansions and

bus facility construction; and fixed guideway expenditures for existing systems.

The Committee action provides a level of $2,941,000,000. Within

this total, $2,272,800,000 is from the ‘‘Mass transit’’ account of the

highway trust fund, and no more than $668,200,000 shall be appropriated from general funds. The following table summarizes the

Committee recommendations:

2001 program

level

Fiscal year 2002

budget estimate

Committee recommendation

Bus and bus facilities ...................................................... $579,700,000 $568,200,000 $568,200,000

Fixed guideway modernization .......................................... 1,058,400,000 1,136,400,000 1,136,400,000

New systems and new extensions .................................... 1,062,400,000 1,136,400,000 1,236,400,000

Total ..................................................................... 2,700,500,000 2,841,000,000 2,941,000,000

Three-year availability of section 3 discretionary funds.—Unobligated discretionary bus and new starts funds from projects funded

in the fiscal year 1999 Transportation appropriations bill (Public

Law 105–277) and previous acts are available for reallocation in

fiscal year 2002. As in previous years, a general provision (sec. 314)

is included which limits funding availability for fiscal year 2002

capital investment funds, except fixed-guideway modernization

funds, to 3 years from enactment.

Limited extensions of discretionary funds.—There have been occasions when the Committee has extended the availability of capital

investment funds. These extensions are granted on a case by case

basis and, in nearly all instances, are due to circumstances that

were unforeseen by the project’s sponsor. The availability of these

particular funds are intended for one additional year, absent further congressional direction.

The Committee directs the FTA not to reallocate funds provided

in fiscal year 1998 and fiscal year 1999 Transportation appropriations bills for the following projects:

—Chambersburg, Pennsylvania intermodal facility and transit

vehicles

—Northern New Mexico park and ride facilities

—Albuquerque, New Mexico—Alvarado Multi-modal transit center

—Albuquerque, New Mexico light rail project
113

—New York, New York—Midtown West Intermodal Ferry Terminal Project —Birmingham-Jefferson County, Alabama buses

—Prichard, Alabama bus and bus facilities

—King County, Washington—Elliot Bay water taxi —Morgantown, West Virginia fixed guideway modernization

project —Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania intermodal facility

—Towamencin Township, Pennsylvania intermodal bus transportation center —Harrisburg, Pennsylvania—Capital Area Transit/Corridor One

project —Philadelphia-Reading, Pennsylvania—SEPTA Schuylkill Valley

Metro —Washington, District of Columbia—intermodal transportation

center —Burlington-Essex Junction Commuter Rail, Vermont

Bill language.—The bill contains a general provision (sec. 348)

reprogramming funds provided in previous fiscal years from the following projects for the purposes specified below: —Northern New Mexico park and ride facilities (fiscal year

1999)—to be made available for the Northern New Mexico park

and ride facilities and State of New Mexico, buses and bus-related facilities. —Northern New Mexico Transit Express/Park and Rides buses

(fiscal year 2000)—to be made available for the Northern New

Mexico park and ride facilities and State of New Mexico, buses

and bus-related facilities.

The bill also includes another general provision (sec. 344) which

clarifies the local match requirements pertaining to a transit

project in Clark County, Nevada.

BUS AND BUS FACILITIES

The Committee recommendation for bus and bus facilities funding is $568,200,000. These funds may be used to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related equipment and to construct

bus-related facilities. Funds for bus and bus facilities shall be distributed as follows:

Project Amount

Alabama rural buses, Alabama ............................................................ $9,000,000

Alabama State Dock intermodal passenger & Monroe Park freight

terminal, Alabama ............................................................................. 5,000,000

Alabama-Tombigbee Regional Commission buses and vans, Alabama .................................................................................................... 500,000

Albuquerque west side bus and bus facility, New Mexico ................. 5,000,000

Albuquerque Alvarado transportation center (phase II) .................... 3,000,000

Anchorage bus and rail transfer facility, Alaska ................................ 3,000,000

Area VII Agency on Aging bus facility, Montana ............................... 1,100,000

Arkansas Transit Association small urban and rural transit systems buses and bus facilities, Arkansas .......................................... 10,000,000

Atlanta, Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority clean fuel buses,

Georgia ................................................................................................ 8,000,000

Auburn intermodal facility and parking garage, Maine ..................... 500,000

Averdeen Ride Line buses, South Dakota ........................................... 100,000

Baton Rouge multi-modal transportation and parking facility, Louisiana ................................................................................................... 8,000,000

Billings buses and transfer facility, Montana ..................................... 3,000,000
114

Project Amount

Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority buses, Alabama ... 2,000,000

Brazos Transit ADA compliant bus, Texas .......................................... 800,000

Brazos Transit buses for Texas A&M University, Texas ................... 1,500,000

Brazos Transit buses, intermodal facility, and parking facility,

Texas ................................................................................................... 1,500,000

Brazos Transit park and ride facility, Texas ....................................... 800,000

Bridgeport intermodal corridor project, Connecticut .......................... 8,000,000

Brockton Intermodal transit center, Massachusetts ........................... 1,000,000

Brookhaven multi-modal facility, Mississippi ..................................... 2,000,000

Austin Metro bus, Texas ....................................................................... 1,400,000

El Paso bus, Texas ................................................................................. 1,100,000

Buffalo County bus and maintenance facility, Nebraska ................... 75,000

Butler County transit facility, Ohio ..................................................... 2,000,000

Butte-Silver Bow Bus facility, Montana .............................................. 500,000

Callowhill bus garage replacement, Pennsylvania ............................. 6,000,000

Capital Area Transportation Authority articulated buses, Michigan ....................................................................................................... 4,000,000

Cedar Rapids intermodal facility, Iowa ............................................... 4,630,000

Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority bus and bus facilities, Florida .................................................................................... 2,000,000

Central Kenai Peninsula Transit buses and bus facilities, Alaska ... 500,000

Central New York Regional Transportation Authority, New York ... 4,000,000

Cherry Street Project multi-modal facility, Indiana ........................... 1,500,000

City of Kent facility, Washington ......................................................... 900,000

Clackamas County south corridor transit improvements, Oregon .... 7,000,000

Clark County Public Transit park and ride facility, Washington ..... 2,500,000

Dayton, Wright-Dunbar Transit Access Project, Ohio ........................ 3,200,000

Detroit Department of Transportation bus replacement, Michigan .. 5,000,000

East Haddam transportation vehicles and transit facilities, Connecticut ................................................................................................ 420,000

Everett Transit buses and vans, Washington ..................................... 1,750,000

Fairbanks clean fuel buses and bus facility, Alaska .......................... 1,500,000

Flint Mass Transportation Authority replacement buses and vans,

Michigan ............................................................................................. 2,000,000

Folsom railroad block project, California ............................................. 1,250,000

Fort Clatsop Shuttling system, Oregon ............................................... 2,500,000

Georgia Regional Transit Authority express bus program, Georgia ........................................................................................................ 10,200,000

Grand Rapids Interurban Transit Partnership transportation center, Michigan ...................................................................................... 6,000,000

Granite State Clean Cities Coalition CNG buses and facilities, New

Hampshire .......................................................................................... 1,500,000

Greater Glens Falls Transit bus facility renovation, New York ........ 500,000

Greater Minnesota Transit Authority bus, paratransit and transit

hub, Minnesota ................................................................................... 7,525,000

Hampton Roads regional buses, Virginia ............................................ 7,000,000

Harrison county multi-modal facilities and shuttle service, Mississippi ................................................................................................ 8,000,000

Hartford-New Britain bus rapid transitway, Connecticut ................. 15,000,000

Hattiesburg intermodal facility, Mississippi ....................................... 4,000,000

Hershey intermodal transportation center, Pennsylvania ................. 2,000,000

Hillsborough Area Transit Authority bus and bus facilities, Florida ........................................................................................................ 4,000,000

Honolulu bus and bus facilities, Hawaii .............................................. 10,000,000

Huntsville Public Transit intermodal facility, Alabama .................... 1,000,000

I–5 Trade Corridor/99th St facility, Washington ................................ 4,000,000

Indiana bus consortium, bus and bus facilities, Indiana ................... 5,000,000

Indianapolis downtown transit facility, Indiana ................................. 4,000,000

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Line 22 articulated

buses, CA ............................................................................................ 500,000

San Joaquin Regional Transit District bus facility, California .......... 500,000

Orange County buses, California ......................................................... 500,000

Contra Costa Connection buses, California ......................................... 250,000

Palmdale Transportation Center, California ....................................... 350,000

Palo Alto intermodal transit center, California .................................. 250,000

Costa Mesa CNG facility, California .................................................... 150,000

Livermore park and ride, California .................................................... 250,000
115

Project Amount

Issaquah Highlands park and ride, Washington ................................ 1,000,000

Jackson multi-modal transportation center, Mississippi .................... 2,000,000

Kalamazoo Metro Transit System bus transfer center, Michigan ..... 1,800,000

Kansas City Area Transit Authority bus and radio equipment, Missouri ..................................................................................................... 10,000,000

King County Eastgate Park and Ride, Washington ........................... 2,500,000

Las Cruces buses, New Mexico ............................................................. 1,000,000

Las Cruces intermodal transit facility, New Mexico .......................... 2,000,000

Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority buses and facility,

California ............................................................................................ 1,500,000

Long Island Rail Road Jamaica intermodal facilities, New York ...... 4,000,000

Los Angeles Metro Transportation Authority rapid buses and bus

facilities, California ............................................................................ 5,000,000

Louisiana State University, intermodal parking facility, Louisiana ....................................................................................................... 2,000,000

Lowell Regional Transport Authority, new bus hub, Massachusetts ..................................................................................................... 1,000,000

Macon terminal intermodal station, Georgia ...................................... 1,500,000

Main Street multi-modal transportation center, Virginia .................. 5,000,000

Marquette County Transit Authority bus and bus facility, Michigan ....................................................................................................... 1,750,000

Memphis International Airport intermodal facility, Tennessee ........ 3,000,000

Miami beach Development electrowave shuttle service, Florida ....... 3,000,000

Mobile Waterfront terminal, Alabama ................................................. 5,000,000

Mobridge Senior Citizen handicap-accessible vehicles, South Dakota ...................................................................................................... 60,000

Monterey-Salinas Transit facility, California ...................................... 1,500,000

Mukilteo multi-modal terminal and ferry, Washington ..................... 1,450,000

Murray-Calloway Transit Authority bus facility, Kentucky .............. 200,000

Muskegon Area Transit System facility, Michigan ............................. 1,700,000

Nassau University Medical Center bus service extension, New

York ..................................................................................................... 1,000,000

New Rochelle intermodal center, New York ........................................ 1,500,000

Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority buses, New York .......... 2,560,000

North Puget Sound Intermodal facilities and improvements, Washington .................................................................................................. 400,000

OATS bus and bus facilities, Missouri ................................................. 2,800,000

Oglala Sioux Tribe bus and bus facilities, South Dakata .................. 2,500,000

Phoenix Regional Public Transportation Authority facility maintenance, Arizona .................................................................................... 7,500,000

Pierce Transit buses, vans, and equipment, Washington .................. 1,000,000

Port Authority of Allegheny buses, Pennsylvania .............................. 2,000,000

Port McKenzie bus and bus facilities, Alaska ..................................... 2,000,000

Providence transportation information center, Rhode Island ............ 2,000,000

Ravalli County Council on Aging bus facility, Montana .................... 625,000

Regional Transport Commission of Southern Nevada bus rapid

transit, Nevada ................................................................................... 6,000,000

Reno Bus Rapid Transit high-capacity articulated buses, Nevada ... 2,000,000

Reno/Sparks bus and bus facilities, Nevada ........................................ 8,000,000

Rosebud Sioux Tribe transportation vans, South Dakota .................. 55,000

San Antonio VIA Metro Transit Authority clean fuel buses,

Texas ................................................................................................... 3,000,000

San Francisco Municipal bus and bus facilities, California ............... 6,500,000

Santa Fe buses and bus facilities, New Mexico .................................. 2,000,000

Ship Creek pedestrian and intermodal facility, and parking garage,

Alaska ................................................................................................. 5,000,000

Sierra Madre Villa & Chinatown intermodal transportation centers, California ................................................................................... 3,500,000

Snohomish County transit buses and bus facilities, Washington ...... 5,000,000

Sound Transit regional transit hubs, Washington .............................. 10,000,000

South Bend Public Transit bus fleet replacement, Indiana ............... 4,500,000

South Florida Regional Transit buses and bus facilities, Florida ..... 8,000,000

Southwest Missouri State University intermodal transfer facility,

Missouri .............................................................................................. 5,000,000

Springfield bus transfer station, Oregon ............................................. 4,000,000

Springfield intermodal facility, Massachusetts ................................... 4,000,000

St. Bernard Parish intermodal facility, Louisiana .............................. 2,000,000
116

Project Amount

St. Louis Bi-State Development Authority bus and bus facilities,

Missouri .............................................................................................. 8,000,000

Statewide buses and bus facilities, Alabama ...................................... 3,000,000

Statewide bus and bus facilities, Colorado .......................................... 8,000,000

Statewide bus and bus facilities, Kentucky ......................................... 5,000,000

Statewide bus and bus facilities, Michigan ......................................... 3,500,000

Statewide bus and bus facilities, New Mexico .................................... 2,000,000

Statewide bus and bus facilities, Ohio ................................................. 6,000,000

Statewide bus and bus facilities, Tennessee ....................................... 9,000,000

Statewide bus and bus facilities, West Virginia ................................. 4,000,000

Statewide bus replacement, Iowa ......................................................... 7,000,000

Statewide bus, bus facilities, and rural transit vehicles, North Dakota ...................................................................................................... 3,900,000

Statewide buses and bus facilities, Delaware ..................................... 5,000,000

Statewide buses and bus facilities, Illinois .......................................... 8,950,000

Statewide buses and bus facilities, Kansas ......................................... 3,500,000

Statewide buses and bus facilities, Maryland ..................................... 12,000,000

Statewide buses and bus facilities, North Carolina ............................ 5,000,000

Statewide buses and bus facilities, Rhode Island ............................... 8,000,000

Statewide buses and bus facilities, Wisconsin .................................... 12,000,000

Statewide buses and bus facilities, Wyoming ...................................... 5,000,000

Statewide buses and bus facility, South Carolina .............................. 9,000,000

Statewide buses, bus facilities, and equipment, Idaho ....................... 3,500,000

Statewide buses, Maine ......................................................................... 5,000,000

Statewide regional intermodal transportation centers, Utah ............ 7,000,000

Statewide small transit systems, buses, and bus facilities, Washington .................................................................................................. 3,500,000

Seward Mass Transit bus and terminal facility, Alaska .................... 200,000

TEA21 Setaside (Altoona and Georgetown) ......................................... 7,850,000

Tompkins County replacement buses, New York ............................... 2,000,000

Topeka Transit transfer center, Kansas .............................................. 500,000

Tuscon intermodal center, Arizona ...................................................... 2,000,000

Twin Cities metro transit bus, bus facilities, and fare card system,

Minnesota ........................................................................................... 6,000,000

University of North Alabama transit projects, Alabama .................... 2,000,000

Vermont Public Transit alternative fuel/hybrid bus and facility,

Vermont .............................................................................................. 4,000,000

Village of Taos Ski Valley bus and bus facilities, New Mexico .......... 500,000

West Lafayette Transit Project bus and bus facilities, Indiana ........ 1,000,000

Wilkes-Barre Intermodal facility, Pennsylvania ................................. 2,000,000

Wrangle Hill buses and maintenance facility, Delaware ................... 6,000,000

Illinois Statewide Buses.—The Committee provides $8,950,000 to

the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) for Section 5309

Bus and Bus Facilities grants. The Committee expects IDOT to

fund the following projects: (1) $750,000 to Western Illinois University for Go WEST, a University transit bus system; (2) $750,000 to

the Rockford Mass transit District for a feasibility study and

preconstruction work on the proposed Eastside Transfer Center; (3)

at least $4,500,000 for Downstate Illinois replacement buses in

Champaign-Urbana, Danville, Macomb, Madison County, Quincy,

River Valley, Rock Island, and Springfield.

Washington Statewide Small Transit System, Buses & Bus Facilities.—The Committee provides $3,500,000 to the Washington

State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for Section 5309 Bus

and Bus Facilities grants. The Committee expects WSDOT to fund

the following projects: (1) $440,000 to Clallam Transit. (2) $928,000

to Grays Harbor Transportation. (3) $632,000 to Island Transit. (4)

$324,000 to Link Transit. (5) $385,000 to Mason County Transportation Authority. (6)$750,000 to Valley Transit.
117

FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION

The Committee recommends a total of $1,136,400,000 for the

modernization of existing rail transit systems. Under TEA21 all of

the funds are distributed by formula. The following table itemizes

the fiscal year 2001 rail modernization allocations by State:

Fiscal year 2002 section 5309 fixed guideway modernization

Fiscal year 2002

State budget

Alaska ..................................................................................................... 1 $7,047,502

Arizona ................................................................................................... 1,644,697

California ................................................................................................ 126,085,672

Colorado .................................................................................................. 1,685,042

Connecticut ............................................................................................. 38,882,061

Delaware ................................................................................................. 925,702

District of Columbia .............................................................................. 56,905,623

Florida .................................................................................................... 17,442,156

Georgia ................................................................................................... 24,732,420

Hawaii .................................................................................................... 1,104,095

Illinois ..................................................................................................... 123,714,778

Indiana ................................................................................................... 9,066,393

Louisiana ................................................................................................ 2,904,984

Maryland ................................................................................................ 27,174,472

Massachusetts ........................................................................................ 69,275,018

Michigan ................................................................................................. 390,401

Minnesota ............................................................................................... 4,169,386

Missouri .................................................................................................. 4,019,407

New Jersey ............................................................................................. 92,768,993

New York ................................................................................................ 350,286,663

Ohio ......................................................................................................... 17,728,816

Oregon .................................................................................................... 4,104,767

Pennsylvania .......................................................................................... 103,484,030

Puerto Rico ............................................................................................. 2,401,851

Rhode Island .......................................................................................... 1,843,732

Tennessee ............................................................................................... 309,837

Texas ....................................................................................................... 8,110,941

Virginia ................................................................................................... 6,133,234

Washington ............................................................................................ 19,883,930

Wisconsin ................................................................................................ 809,397

Subtotal ........................................................................................ 1,125,036,000

Oversight ................................................................................................ 11,364,000

Total ............................................................................................. 1,136,400,000

1The Committee understands that the final Alaska rail modernization allocation will include

both the prior years’ allocation owed the railroad and the fiscal year 2002 allocation after appropriate application.

NEW STARTS

The bill provides $1,236,400,000 for new starts. These funds are

available for major investment studies, preliminary engineering,

right-of-way acquisition, project management, oversight, and construction for new systems and extensions. Under section 3009(g) of

TEA21, there is an 8-percent statutory cap on the amount made

available for activities other than final design and construction—

that is, alternatives analysis, environmental impact statements,

preliminary engineering, major investment studies, and other

predesign and preconstruction activities.
118

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The bill allocates the funds provided for new starts as follows:

Project Amount

Denver, Colorado, Southwest corridor light rail transit project ........ $192,492

Northeast Indianapolis-downtown corridor project ............................. 3,000,000

Northern Indiana South Shore commuter rail project ....................... 3,000,000

Salt Lake City, Utah, CBD to University light rail transit project ........................................................................................................ 15,000,000

Salt Lake City, Utah, University Medical Center light rail transit

extension project ................................................................................ 6,000,000

Salt Lake City, Utah, Ogden-Provo commuter rail project ................ 2,000,000

Wilmington, Delaware, Transit Corridor project ................................ 4,000,000

Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System project .................... 500,000

Denver, Colorado, Southeast corridor light rail transit project ......... 60,000,000

Kansas City, Missouri, Central Corridor Light Rail transit project ........................................................................................................ 10,000,000

Atlanta, Georgia, MARTA extension project ....................................... 25,000,000

Maine Marine Highway development project ...................................... 2,000,000

New Jersey, Hudson-Bergen light rail transit project ........................ 151,069,771

Newark-Elizabeth, New Jersey, rail link project ................................ 20,000,000

New Jersey Urban Core Newark Penn Station improvements

project .................................................................................................. 3,000,000

Cleveland, Ohio, Euclid corridor extension project ............................. 7,000,000

Albuquerque, New Mexico, light rail project ....................................... 2,000,000

Chicago, Illinois, Douglas branch reconstruction project ................... 35,000,000

Chicago, Illinois, Ravenswood line extension project .......................... 5,000,000

St. Louis, Missouri, Metrolink St. Clair extension project ................. 24,223,268

Chicago, Illinois, Metra North central, South West, Union Pacific

commuter project ................................................................................ 30,000,000

Charlotte, North Carolina, South corridor light rail transit project ........................................................................................................ 10,000,000

Raleigh, North Carolina, Triangle transit project .............................. 9,000,000

San Diego, California, Mission Valley East light rail transit extension project .......................................................................................... 65,000,000

Los Angeles, California, East Side corridor light rail transit project ........................................................................................................ 10,000,000

San Francisco, California, BART extension project ............................ 80,605,331

Los Angeles, California, North Hollywood extension project ............. 9,289,557

Stockton, California, Altamont commuter rail project ....................... 5,000,000

San Jose, California, Tasman West, light rail transit project ........... 113,336

Nashville, Tennessee, Commuter rail project ...................................... 6,000,000

Memphis, Tennessee, Medical Center rail extension project ............. 19,170,000

Des Moines, Iowa, DSM bus feasibility project ................................... 150,000

Macro Vision Pioneer, Iowa, light rail feasibility project ................... 100,000

Sioux City, Iowa, light rail project ....................................................... 3,500,000

Dubuque, Iowa, light rail feasibility project ........................................ 300,000

Charleston, South Carolina, Monobeam project .................................. 2,000,000

Anderson County, South Carolina, transit system project ................. 5,000,000

Dallas, Texas, North central light rail transit extension project ....... 70,000,000

Houston, Texas, Metro advanced transit plan project ........................ 25,000,000

Fort Worth, Texas, Trinity railway express project ............................ 4,000,000

Honolulu, Hawaii, Bus rapid transit project ....................................... 12,000,000

Boston, Massachusetts, South Boston Piers transitway project ........ 10,631,245

Boston, Massachusetts, Urban ring transit project ............................ 1,000,000

Kenosha-Racine, Milwaukee Wisconsin, commuter rail extension

project .................................................................................................. 4,000,000

New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal Street car line project ...................... 23,000,000

New Orleans, Louisiana, Airport CBD commuter rail project ........... 7,000,000

Burlington, Vermont, Burlington to Middlebury rail line project ..... 3,000,000

Detroit, Michigan, light rail airport link project ................................. 1,000,000

Grand Rapids, Michigan, ITP metro area, major corridor project ..... 1,500,000

Iowa, Metrolink light rail feasibility project ....................................... 500,000

Fairfield, Connecticut, Commuter rail project .................................... 6,000,000

Stamford, Connecticut, Urban transitway project .............................. 4,000,000

Little Rock, Arkansas, River rail project ............................................. 3,000,000

Maryland, MARC commuter rail improvements projects ................... 14,000,000
119

Project Amount

Baltimore, Maryland rail transit project ............................................. 3,000,000

Largo, Maryland, metrorail extension project ..................................... 60,000,000

Baltimore, Maryland, central light rail transit double track project ........................................................................................................ 18,110,000

Puget Sound, Washington, Sounder commuter rail project ............... 24,500,000

Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Tri-County commuter rail project ............. 30,000,000

Pawtucket-TF Green, Rhode Island, commuter rail and maintenance facility project .......................................................................... 8,000,000

Johnson County, Kansas, commuter rail project ................................ 1,500,000

Long Island Railroad, New York, east side access project ................. 20,000,000

New York, New York, Second Avenue subway project ....................... 3,000,000

Birmingham, Alabama, transit corridor project .................................. 4,000,000

Nashua, New Hampshire-Lowell, Massachusetts, commuter rail

project .................................................................................................. 5,000,000

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, North Shore connector light rail extension project .......................................................................................... 10,000,000

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Schuykill Valley metro project ............. 16,000,000

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, stage II light rail transit reconstruction

project .................................................................................................. 20,000,000

Scranton, Pennsylvania, rail service to New York City project ......... 2,500,000

Wasilla, Alaska, alternate route project .............................................. 2,500,000

Ohio, Central Ohio North Corridor rail (COTA) project ..................... 1,000,000

Virginia, VRE station improvements project ....................................... 4,000,000

Twin Cities, Minnesota, Hiawatha Corridor light rail transit

project .................................................................................................. 50,000,000

Portland, Oregon, Interstate MAX light rail transit extension

project .................................................................................................. 70,000,000

San Juan, Tren Urbano project ............................................................ 50,149,000

Alaska and Hawaii Ferry projects ........................................................ 10,296,000

Albuquerque, New Mexico, light rail project.—The City of Albuquerque’s Transit Department, in coordination with New Mexico’s

Highway and Transportation Department, and the Middle Rio

Grande Council of Governments, has undertaken a High Capacity

Transportation System (HCTS) Study. The Albuquerque Metropolitan Planning Area is forecasted to have a 48 percent increase in

population by 2020. Accordingly, in order to maintain the area’s

attractiveness for residents and economic development, a combination of transportation improvements is under examination. Planning for the proposed HCTS will be completed in two phases. Phase

I will develop a 20-year high capacity-strategic corridors plan.

Phase I will be completed in November 2000. Phase II will include

the environmental document for the approved corridor(s). The

Draft Environmental Impact Statement is anticipated for completion in December 2002. Alternatives that are being studied include:

No-build, roadway improvements, new roadways, Travel Demand

Management/Transportation System Management (TDM/TSM), including Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) applications, bus

service improvements, express bus and park-and-ride service, High

Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, busways, commuter rail, light rail

and a combination of modes. High capacity-strategic corridors will

be incorporated into the region’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan.

Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $12,300,000

in section 5309 New Starts funds for this effort and it has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $2,000,000 in

new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Anderson County, South Carolina Transit System.—The Anderson County trolley system would prove an integral part of the commuter population in Anderson County. It would move people, many

of which are low income, from their homes to jobs by using the rail
120

system. This would create a more efficient and environmentally

conscious answer to the overburdened system currently in place.

The Committee has recommended $5,000,000 in new starts funding

for this project in fiscal year 2002.

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 TEA21.

Accordingly, on March 2, 2000, FTA amended the FFGA to include

28 additional railcars, a multilevel parking facility in lieu of a surface parking lot, and enhancements to customer security and amenity measures at the Sandy Springs and North Springs stations. The

total cost of the amended project is $463,180,000, with

$370,540,000 from the section 5309 new starts program. Of the

$65,530,000 increase in Federal funding, $10,670,000 was applied

from unexpended prior-year funds identified from cost savings on

the Dunwoody section of the North Line extension. Including these

prior-year funds, a total of $304,820,000 has been appropriated for

this project in fiscal year 2000 and prior years, and an additional

$24,770,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001. This leaves

$40,950,000 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, rail transit project.—Planning and feasibility studies to look at the future of rail improvements in the Baltimore area are needed. The studies would examine the possibility

of creating a rail ‘‘loop’’ extending from the terminus of Light Rail

at Penn Station southward to the Pratt Street Corridor. The rail

would then continue westward to connect with the Light Rail at

Howard Street. Funding is based under TEA21 on section

3030(b)(6) under the Metropolitan Rail Corridor project, and section 3030(b)(7) under the Baltimore People Mover project. The

Committee has recommended $3,000,000 in new starts funding for

this project in fiscal year 2002.

Baltimore/Central LRT Double-Tracking.—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 between Timonium and

Cromwell Station/Glen Burnie, for a total of 9.4 miles. Although no
121

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 double-tracking 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. MTA ridership forecasts estimate that this project will

serve 44,000 average weekday boardings and 6,800 daily new riders by 2020. This project will improve service and reliability by permitting the operation of additional trains which will reduce the interval between trains to eight minutes in peak service and 12 minutes during off-peak periods; trains currently operate at 17-minute

intervals. This project has been rated ‘‘medium-high’’ for finance

and ‘‘medium’’ for project justification, based on FTA’s evaluation

under section 5309(e). This results in an overall project rating of

‘‘recommended.’’ The original Central Corridor Light Rail Line

began operations in 1992 as a mostly single-track line. MTA completed a study examining the feasibility, environmental impacts

and benefits of double tracking eight sections. Three federally-funded extensions, to Hunt Valley, Penn Station, and Baltimore-Washington International Airport were completed in 1998. The double

track project was adopted by the Baltimore Metropolitan Council

and included in its financially constrained long-range plan in 1993.

Section 3030(a)(42) of TEA21 authorizes the ‘‘Maryland—Light Rail

Double Track’’ for final design and construction. A total of $5,650,000 has been appropriated through fiscal year 2000, and an

additional $2,970,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001. The Committee has recommended $18,110,000 in new starts funding for this

project in fiscal year 2002.

Birmingham, Alabama, transit corridor project.—The Birmingham Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) completed a

Regional Transit Feasibility Analysis as part of the Strategic Regional Multi-modal Mobility Plan (Plan) in November 1999. The

overall Plan includes a congestion management system element

and a feasibility determination for regional transportation and

transit improvements for the Birmingham Metropolitan Planning

Area of Jefferson and Shelby Counties. In the Phase I regional

transportation and investment planning process, the transportation

alternatives that were identified included highway improvements,

high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, improved fixed-route transit

service, circulator and feeder bus service, express bus service operating from park-and-ride lots on HOV lanes and light rail transit.

The conclusions from the Phase I effort included, among other findings, the need to address long-term dedicated public transit funding and land development policies. The Birmingham MPO, representing local municipal and county governments, in cooperation

with the Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority, will conduct Phase II. Phase II will identify the locally preferred alternative in each corridor in accordance with FTA’s regulations for

Major Capital Investment Projects. Phase II is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2002. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has
122

appropriated $8,880,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds for this

effort and it has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has

recommended $4,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in

fiscal year 2002.

Boston, Massachusetts, South Boston pier 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 will 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, three-station

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 2000, a total of

$294,760,000 has been provided for this project. The fiscal year

2001 appropriation provided an additional $24,770,000. The Committee has recommended $10,631,245 in new starts funding for this

project in fiscal year 2002.

Boston, Massachusetts, Urban ring transit project.—The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) is conducting a

Major Investment Study (MIS) to examine transportation alternatives to improve circumferential mass transit in a corridor surrounding the Boston central core. The proposed corridor, known as

the Urban Ring and generally following a previously proposed

inner belt highway alignment, includes regional trip generators, beginning at the University of Massachusetts’ Boston Campus at the

southeast end and terminating at Logan Airport at the northeast

end. The corridor also includes many major public, private, and institutional activity centers located in Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea,

Everett, Somerville, and Brookline. Currently, the alternatives

under consideration include circumferential rail service, various

combinations of rail and bus service to new station stops on the existing radial system, and enhanced bus service. These alternatives

would connect with extant commuter rail and transit lines. The

project is included in the ‘‘future projects’’ section of the Boston

area Long-Range Transportation Plan, but is not in the financially

constrained plan. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $4,800,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds for this effort

and authorized under TEA21. The Committee has recommended

$1,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year

2002.
123

Burlington, Vermont, Burlington to Middlebury rail line

project.—The Vermont Agency of Transportation and Vermont Rail

Division are working to slowly rehabilitate the rail system along

the western side of the State to provide faster and more efficient

service to a greater amount of people in Vermont. Given the overwhelming success of the Champlain Flyer commuter rail line from

Burlington to Charlotte, Vermont. This new rail line would extend

service to Middlebury as well as add more daily travelers on the

rail system. The Committee has recommended $3,000,000 in new

starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Central Link Light Rail, Puget Sound, Washington.—The Committee strongly supports a comprehensive transit solution for the

Puget Sound, Washington corridor. It is currently the second most

congested area in the nation. A $500,000,000 Full Funding Grant

Agreement (FFGA) for the project was executed in January 2001.

Since that time, the project has faced increased scrutiny and oversight by Congress and the Department of Transportation Inspector

General related to concerns about cost increases and schedule

delays. This thorough examination of the project is justified.

The Committee has been encouraged by progress made in recent

months. The agency has new leadership and a new management

team. New management has executed an agency-wide re-organization and instituted rigorous new budget and project controls. The

Sound Transit board is currently reviewing the project, and is

scheduled to make a decision to affirm or revise the alignment for

the first minimum operable segment in September 2001.

The Committee anticipates honoring the FFGA and resuming

funding for the project once the concerns raised by the Congress

and the Inspector General’s Interim Report are addressed satisfactorily.

Central Ohio North Corridor Rail project.—The Central Ohio

Transit Authority (COTA) is pursuing funding for preliminary engineering for the North Corridor Rail project. COTA and Mid-Ohio

Regional Planning Commission are currently in the process of updating a Major Investment Study (MIS) of the North Corridor that

will be completed in 2001. COTA plans to move into preliminary

engineering (PE) upon completion of the MIS. The Committee has

recommended $1,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in

fiscal year 2002.

Charleston, South Carolina, Monobeam Project.—The Charleston

Area Regional Transportation Authority, in cooperation with the

City of Charleston and the City of North Charleston, is examining

the feasibility of implementing a proposed monobeam transit system from the Airport to the Convention Center. The proposed fullscale monobeam prototype is a 3-year $35,000,000 to $40,000,000

effort that is expected to be financed largely with private funds. An

approximately 1.25-mile prototype will be erected on a site in the

Charleston community and is designed to demonstrate the aesthetic, cost and environmental characteristics of the monobeam, as

well as its safety and reliability. The prototype could become the

first segment of a regional rail transit network. Through fiscal year

2001, Congress has appropriated $6,130,000 in section 5309 New

Starts for this effort and it has also been authorized under TEA21.
124

The Committee has recommended $2,000,000 in new starts funding

for this project in fiscal year 2002.

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 line extending from Uptown Charlotte

to the Town on Pineville, North Carolina, near the South Carolina

border. The proposed project is currently planned to operate within

portions of existing Norfolk-Southern railroad rights-of-way (ROW),

including sharing ROW with the city’s existing downtown trolley

system. The south corridor is an area generally paralleling I–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 reminder 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 12 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 transfer 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.

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. It has also been authorized under TEA21. The Committee has recommended

$10,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year

2002.

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 the 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-1980’s. Age-related deterioration has resulted in high maintenance and operating costs on the

line, as well as declining service. The Douglas Branch currently

carries approximately 27,000 riders on an average weekday, and

serves one of the most economically distressed areas in Chicago;

low income households make up 30 percent of the total number of

households within walking distance of the stations. The line has

been in operation for over 100 years, and serves neighborhoods that

originally developed along the system. The corridor contains an estimated 54,000 jobs and 115,000 residents within one-half mile of

the stations, and serves the University of Illinois at Chicago

(25,000 students) and a large, dense central business district with

an estimated 339,000 jobs. Population and employment densities

are high, averaging 9,100 jobs and nearly 20,000 people per square

mile. After ‘‘looping’’ through the central business district, the Blue
125

Line also extends to O’Hare International Airport and the Medical

Center Complex. The total capital cost of the Douglas Branch reconstruction project is estimated at $482,600,000. The Douglas

Branch is authorized for final design and construction by section

3030(a)(106) of TEA21. 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 $4,920,000 has been appropriated through fiscal year 2000, and an additional $14,860,000

was provided in fiscal year 2001. This leaves $300,320,000 needed

to fulfill the FFGA. The Committee has recommended $35,000,000

in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Chicago, Illinois, Metra North Central, Southwest Corridor Commuter Rails, and Union Pacific West line extension project.—Metra,

the commuter rail division of the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) 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. The total capital cost of this project

is estimated at $236,450,000, of which Metra is expected to seek

$144,690,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. The North Central corridor extends from downtown Chicago to Antioch on the Illinois-Wisconsin border, and traverses suburban Lake County. It includes the two most significant hubs of employment in the sixcounty northeastern Illinois region, the Chicago CBD and the area

surrounding O’Hare International Airport. Metra estimates that

this project will serve an average of 8,400 average weekday

boardings by 2020, with 8,000 daily new riders. This project has

been rated ‘‘medium’’ for both project justification and finance,

earning an overall rating of ‘‘recommended.’’ FTA approved entry

into the final design stage of development in October 2000. Section

3030(a)(10) of TEA21 authorizes the North Central project for final

design and construction. Through fiscal year 2000, a total of

$19,600,000 was provided for this project, and an additional

$14,250,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001. 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 TEA21 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. Chicago’s Metra commuter rail division
126

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

the multiple track and diagonal 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 TEA21 authorizes this project as the Chicago

‘‘west line extension’’. The total capital costs of the Union Pacific

west extension and improvements project is estimated at

$80,728,000 in Federal new starts funding (60 percent). Through

fiscal year 2001, a total of $16,450,000 has been appropriated. The

Committee has recommended a combined amount of $30,000,000 in

new starts funding for these three projects in 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 Chicago and includes 19 stations. The majority of the brown line is operated on an elevated structure except one portion near the north

end of the line, which operates at grade. The brown line was built

between 1900 and 1907. The line currently carries approximately

104,000 average weekday boardings; however, current stations 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 TEA21 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 contemplating 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,

in addition to be authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $5,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

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
127

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 area and continue into the city of East Cleveland,

terminating at the Stokes/Windermere rapid transit station.

GCRTA proposes to operate 60-foot articulated electric trolley

buses (ETB) with both left and right-hand 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 tail link between downtown and University Circle. In November

1995, the GCRTA Board of Trustees selected the ETCP 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 planing organization) 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 of

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.

The Committee has recommended $7,000,000 in new starts funding

for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Dallas, Texas, North Central LRT extension project.—Dallas Area

Rapid Transit (DART) is constructing a 12.5-mile, 9-station extension of its light rail system from the Park Lane Station north to

the City of Plano. DART estimates that approximately 17,000 riders will use this extension by 2020, of which 6,800 will be new riders. The total cost of this project is estimated at $517,200,000.

DART began contracting for construction and purchasing vehicles

and necessary right-of-way in May 1998, and expects to open the

North Central extension for revenue service in December 2003. The

North Central extension is authorized for final design and construction under section 3030(a)(20) of TEA21. FTA issued an FFGA

for this project on October 6, 1999, which will provide a total of

$333,000,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. Through fiscal

year 2000, a total of $92,270,000 has been provided to this project,

with an additional $69,350,000 appropriated in fiscal year 2001.

The Committee has recommended $70,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Denver, Colorado, Southeast Corridor LRT project.—The Regional

Transportation District (RTD) in Denver and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) are implementing a 19.12-mile, 14-
128

station light rail line between downtown Denver and Lincoln Avenue in Douglas County along I–25, with a spur along I–225 to

Parker Road in Arapahoe County. The double-tracked line would

operate over an exclusive right-of-way and connect with both the

existing Central Corridor light rail line in downtown Denver, and

the Southwest line which is currently under construction. 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 TEA21 authorized the Southeast LRT in Denver for final design

and construction. FTA issued an FFGA for this project on November 17, 2000, which will provide a total of $525,000,000 in section

5309 new starts funding. A total of $3,440,000 in section 5309 new

starts funds has been appropriated for this project through fiscal

year 2000, and an additional $2,970,000 was provided in fiscal year

2001. The Committee has recommended $60,000,000 in new starts

funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Denver, Colorado, Southwest Corridor LRT project.—The Denver

RTD Southwest Corridor 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 station on the existing Central Corridor line south to Mineral Avenue in Littleton,

running parallel to Santa Fe Drive over an exclusive, grade-separated right-of-way. The total cost of this project was $176,320,000.

Ridership in the opening year has exceeded 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. FTA issued an FFGA for this project on

May 9, 1996, which will provide a total of $120,000,000 in section

5309 new starts funding. Through fiscal year 2000, a total of

$99,790,000 has been provided to this project, with an additional

$20,010,000 appropriated in fiscal year 2001. The Committee has

recommended $192,492 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Des Moines, Iowa, DSM bus feasibility project.—Due to growth in

the Des Moines area, a feasibility study is necessary to apprise the

need for adjustments in the transportation system in the greater

Des Moines area. The Committee has recommended $150,000 in

new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Detroit, Michigan, light rail airport link project.—An alternative

analysis phase of the study of a rail system linking downtown Detroit with the Detroit Metropolitan/Wayne County Airport. The Detroit Airport will open a new international terminal in December

which will greatly increase the airport’s capacity. This rail project

will alleviate traffic congestion and the shortage of parking that is

expected as a result of the expanded airport. The rail project is currently undergoing a feasibility study. This study is expected to be

completed in June of 2001. The Committee has recommended

$1,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year

2002.

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, Tri-Rail Commuter Rail Upgrade.—The

Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) is proposing a number of system improvements to the 71.7-mile regional transportation system it operates between Palm Beach, Broward and Dade

Counties in South Florida. This area has a population of over 4
129

million, nearly one-third of the total population of Florida. The

planned improvements include construction of a second mainline

track, rehabilitation of the signal system, station and parking improvements, acquisition of new rolling stock, improvements to the

Hialeah Maintenance Yard facility and construction of a new,

northern layover facility. The proposed double-tracking will improve service by a factor of three, permitting 20-minute intervals

between trains during peak commuter hours instead of the current

one-hour headways. Tri-Rail estimates that these improvements

will serve 42,100 average daily boardings by 2015, including 10,200

daily new riders. 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 for the Double Track Corridor Improvement Program Segment 5 Project will provide a total of

$110,500,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. Tri-Rail has allocated a total of $10,810,000 in fiscal year 2000 and prior year funding to this project, and an additional $14,860,000 was appropriated

in fiscal year 2001. This project has been authorized in TEA21. The

Committee has recommended $30,000,000 in new starts funding for

this project in fiscal year 2002.

Fort Worth, Texas, Trinity Railway Express project.—The addition of rolling stock in the Trinity Railway Express would allow the

rail to meet anticipated ridership that is associated with service to

the Fort Worth central business district which is due to increase

in the fall. Existing ridership has exceeded expectations and the

Fort Worth Transit Authority anticipates that the central business

district service will require two new bi-level coaches, one new bilevel cab car and one new locomotive to meet demand for the extension of service to downtown Fort Worth. The Committee has recommended $4,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Grand Rapids, Michigan, ITP metro area, major corridor

project.—The Interurban Transit Partnership is looking to conduct

a study in the Grand Rapids, Michigan metro area. This study

would investigate the possibility and assess the necessity of a

major corridor running through this region. This project has been

authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $1,500,000

in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Honolulu, Hawaii, Bus rapid transit study.—This project is part

of the Primary Corridor Transportation Project. The Honolulu Bus

Rapid Transit (BRT) consists of a Regional and In-town bus rapid

transit system. The Regional BRT element includes a continuous

H–1 BRT corridor from Kapolei to Downtown, to be used by Regional BRT vehicles as well as private automobiles with three or

more occupants. The in-town BRT component would be a high capacity transit spine from Middle Street Downtown, a University
130

Branch from Downtown to the University of Hawaii-Manoa, and a

downtown Kakaako/Wakiki Branch. In fiscal year 2001 $2,500,000

was appropriated for this project. This project has been authorized

in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $12,000,000 in new

starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Houston, Texas, Metro advanced transit plan project.—The Advanced Transit Program (ATP) is a $304,800,000 program that is

proposed for funding with 50 percent section 5309 New Starts

funds and 50 percent local funds. The ATP includes a number of

projects, including two Major Investment Studies (MIS)—(Downtown to Astrodome and West Loop Corridors). The Downtown to

Astrodome MIS/Environmental Assessment was completed in September 1999. Preliminary engineering for the resultant light rail

locally preferred alternative is currently underway. The West Loop

MIS is scheduled for completion in March 2001. The West Loop

MIS is locally funded. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $8,400,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds for the

ATP. Section 5309 New Starts funds appropriated through fiscal

year 1999 were applied to the MIS/EA for the Downtown to Astrodome LRT. Assignment of fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001

funds are pending. This project has been authorized in TEA21. The

Committee has recommended $25,000,000 in new starts funding for

this project in fiscal year 2002.

Johnson County, Kansas, commuter rail project engineering and

design.—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 share 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. TEA21 section 5309(e)(8)(A)

applies to this project. The Committee has recommended

$1,500,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year

2002.

Kansas City, Missouri, Central corridor light rail/streetcar

project.—The Kansas City Area Transportation Authority is finalizing the preliminary engineering for the 25 miles of light rail/

streetcars linking southern and eastern portions of Kansas City,

Missouri. The City of Kansas City, Missouri is embarking on an

initiative to develop a fixed-guide way public transit system in the

Central Corridor. The Committee has recommended $10,000,000 in

new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee, Wisconsin, commuter rail extension

project.—The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC)—local Metropolitan Planning Organization—plans

to conduct an Alternative Analysis study to examine the feasibility

of extending Chicago-based Metra commuter rail service from Ke-
131

nosha to Racine and Milwaukee. The study will focus on a proposed

33-mile corridor connecting the central business districts of Kenosha, Racine and Milwaukee in southeastern Wisconsin. SEWRPC

has recently completed a feasibility study—funded entirely with

local funds—that concluded that the extension is feasible. SEWRPC

has adopted the project into the region’s Long-Range Plan. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $5,440,000 in section

5309 New Starts funds for this effort. This project has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $4,000,000 in

new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

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 Georges’s County

master plan. The 3.1 mile alignment, containing at-, above-, and

below-grade 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 and 11 bus bays each. A number of WMATA and Prince

George’s County bus routes will connect to the two new stations;

shuttle bus service is proposed between both stations and the

FedEx Field (formerly known as the Redskins Stadium). The

project will also directly serve the USAir Arena, a former major

sports complex planned for entertainment and retail uses. MTA

will manage the project through preliminary engineering, with

WMATA undertaking final design and construction. The project is

anticipated to open for service by September 2004, with a total capital cost estimated at $433,900,00. 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. This project has been authorized in

TEA21. The Committee has recommended $60,000,000 in new

starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
132

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. The proposed system includes 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. A

future 0.4 mile extension to the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library site has been proposed. Revenue service is planned

to begin in December 2002. This project is addressed in the TEA21

section 5309(e)(8)(A). The Committee has recommended $3,000,000

in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

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 and Long Island and Queens and a new passenger

terminal in Grand Central Terminal (GST) 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. 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 in

to Grand Central Station. In September 1998, FTA approved pre-
133

liminary 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. This project has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $20,000,000 in

new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Los Angeles, California, East Side 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 (the city’s major intermodal hub,

serving intercity, commuter, and regional rail service, as well as

local and express bus services) along Alameda Street through the

City 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. 15,000 average weekday boardings are forecasted on the proposed line in 2020, including 9,700 daily new riders. The project is estimated to cost $759,500,000 in escalated dollars, with a section 5309 New Starts share of $402,300,000. This

project has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $10,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Los Angeles, California, North Hollywood extension project.—The

Los Angeles Metro Rail Red Line rapid-rail system is being

planned, programmed and constructed in phases, through a series

of ‘‘Minimum Operable Segments’’ (MOSs). The first of these segments (MOS–1), a 4.4-mile, 5-station segment, opened for revenue

service in January 1993. A 2.1-mile, three-station segment of

MOS–2 opened along Wilshire Boulevard in July 1996; an additional 4.6-mile, 5-station segment of MOS–2 opened in June 1999,

and the Federal funding commitment has been fulfilled. 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
134

new starts funds for MOS–3 to $1,416,490. In January 1997, FTA

requested that LACMTA 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 the 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, LACMTA 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, including the LACMTA Accelerated Bus Procurement Plan. LACMTA continued to study transit investment options

for the Eastside and Mid-City corridors. In October 2000, FTA approved entry into preliminary engineering for a 5.9-mile, 8-station

light rail line in the Eastside Corridor between downtown Los Angeles and East Los Angeles. The Mid-City corridor is still undergoing alternatives analysis. FTA will consider the prior Federal

commitment under the MOS–3 FFGA as an ‘‘other factor’’ for rating and evaluation purposes for these projects, as long as the identified projects otherwise meet the requirements of the new starts

program. On June 9, 1997, FTA and LACMTA negotiated a revised

FFGA covering the North Hollywood segment (Phase 1-A) of MOS–

3, which opened in June 2000. The total capital cost of the North

Hollywood project is estimated at $1,310,820, of which the revised

FFGA commits $681,040,000 in section 5309 new starts funds.

Through fiscal year 2000, a total of $581,820,000 has been appropriated for the North Hollywood segment of MOS–3; an additional

$49,530,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001. This project has been

authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $9,289,557

in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Maine Marine Highway development project.—The Maine Department of Transportation is looking into developing a marine transportation system that would offer an alternative to automobile traffic. The original Marine Highway was authorized by section 3030

of the TEA21 authorization and $2,000,000 was appropriated for

the project. Funding in 2002 will go towards the Portland Harbor

Ocean Gate Project. The Committee has recommended $2,000,000

in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Macro Vision Pioneer, Iowa, light rail feasibility project.—The

Macro Vision Pioneer Light Rail system would use the existing

track of the CRANDIC, the Iowa Northern and the CN Railroad.

It would also use vintage railcars. To complete the plan, funds are

needed for the initial design of the project, a feasibility study, and

building costs. The Committee has recommended $100,000 in new

starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
135

Maryland, MARC commuter rail improvement projects.—The

Maryland Mass Transit Administration is proposing three projects

for the Maryland Commuter Rail (MARC) system serving the Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC metropolitan areas. These projects

are (1) Mid-Day Storage Facility, (2) Penn-Camden Connection, and

(3) Silver Spring Intermodal Transit Center. The proposed Mid-Day

Storage Facility would be used for daytime equipment layover,

minor repair, daily servicing and inspections of commuter rail train

sets within the Amtrak Yard at Washington, DC’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. Estimated capital costs for the project total $21,000,000. The Penn-Camden Connection is a 6-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, allowing redirection of MARC service during periods of CSX freight operations. Estimated capital costs for the

project total $30,800,000. The proposed Silver Spring Intermodal

Transit Center, located in suburban Washington, DC, will construct

an intermodal transit facility that relocates the Silver Spring

MARC Station to the Silver Spring Metrorail station. The transit

center would allow convenient passenger transfers between several

modes of travel, including commuter rail, heavy rail, commuter and

local bus service, taxi, bicycle, auto, and pedestrians. The center

will also accommodate the proposed Georgetown Branch Trolley to

operate between Silver Spring and Bethesda. Located in the Silver

Spring, MD central business district, a major transit hub for lower

Montgomery County, the intermodal transit center will more efficiently meet existing and future transit needs of this area. Estimated capital costs for the project total $33,300,000. Section

3030(g)(2) of TEA21 authorizes these projects as part of the Frederick extension, and will permit service improvements necessary to

take full advantage of that extension. The proposed share of Federal funding from the section 5309 new starts program is less than

$25,000,000 for each of the individual improvements, which renders them exempt from evaluation. The Committee has recommended $14,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Memphis, Tennessee Medical Center Extension project.—The

Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA), in cooperation with the

City of Memphis, is proposing to build a 2-mile light rail extension

to the Main Street Trolley/Riverfront Loop village rail system. The

extension would expand service from the central business district

(CBD) east to the Medical Center area. The line would operate on

city streets in mixed traffic and would connect with the Main

Street Trolley, sharing a lane with automobile traffic on Madison

Avenue between Main Street and Cleveland Street. Six new sta-
136

tions would be located along the route. The line will be designed

to accommodate light rail vehicles, but vintage rail cars would be

used until a proposed regional LRT line is implemented and a fleet

of modern LRT vehicles is acquired. The total capital cost of this

project is estimated at $74,580,000. This project would be the last

segment of the downtown rail circulation system as well as the first

segment of a regional light rail line. This project is included in the

City of Memphis’ Capital Improvement Program, the Memphis

MPO Transportation Improvement Program, and the State Transportation Improvement Program. A Major Investment Study/Environmental Assessment was completed in May 1997, fulfilling the

statutory requirement for an alternatives analysis. FTA approved

this project for entry into final design in May 2000. The Memphis

Corridor was authorized for final design and construction by section 3030(a)(43) of TEA21. 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. A total of $9,890,000 has

been appropriated for this project through fiscal year 2000; an additional $5,940,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001. The Committee has recommended $19,170,000 in new starts funding for this

project in fiscal year 2002.

Iowa, Metrolink light rail feasibility project.—Metrolink, the

transit agency for the bi-state Illinois-Iowa Quad City area will

conduct a detailed feasibility study for providing rapid transit

using existing rail lines. The lines being examined on the Iowa side

follow the Mississippi River in the metropolitan area and a possible

line may go to Eldridge. The Committee provides $500,000 for this

project in fiscal year 2002

Nashua, New Hampshire-Lowell, Massachusetts, commuter rail

project.—The New Hampshire Department of Transportation is

planning on constructing an 11 mile commuter rail extension

project. The rail line would connect Lowell, Massachusetts and

Nashua, New Hampshire. The project includes the rehabilitation of

track and appurtenances, construction of new track where necessary, as well as construction of a park-and-ride lot with a boarding platform. The new service extension will provide an alternative

to a highly congested highway corridor. This project received funding through the TEA21 authorization as well as through other appropriations. The Committee has recommended $5,000,000 in new

starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Nashville, Tennessee, regional commuter rail project.—Nashville’s

Regional Transportation Authority, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and the Metropolitan Transit Authority have recently

completed the preliminary engineering and environmental studies.

Facility upgrades and rolling stock are needed to increase the productivity of the commuter rail line. $6,000,000 was appropriated in

fiscal year 2001 for the Nashville Regional Commuter Rail. This

project has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $6,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

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 line along the Hudson River Waterfront in

Hudson County, from the Hoboken Terminal to 34th Street in Ba-
137

yonne and Westside Avenue in Jersey City. This line is intended

as the initial minimum operable segment (MOS–1) of a larger 21-

mile, 30-station line extending from the Vince Lombardi park-andride lot in Bergen County to Bayonne, passing through Port Imperial in Weehauken, Hoboken, and Jersey City. The core of the completed system will serve the high-density commercial centers in

Jersey City and Hoboken, and provide connections with NJ Transit

commuter rail service, PATH trains to Newark and Manhattan,

and the Port Imperial ferry from Weehauken to Manhattan. This

initial operating segment is being constructed under a turnkey contract to design, build, operate, and maintain the system, which was

awarded in October 1996. Total costs are expected to be

$992,140,000 for MOS–1; construction began in December 1996.

The Department issued an FFGA on October 15, 1996 that commits

$604,090,000 in section 5309 new starts funding for MOS–1.

Through fiscal year 2000, a total of $325,430,000 has been appropriated for this project. The fiscal year 2001 appropriation provided

an additional $119,870,000. This project has been authorized in

TEA21. The Committee has recommended $151,069,771 in new

starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

New Jersey, Urban Core Project.—Improvements and expansion

of platforms at the Newark Penn Station would help to facilitate

additional passenger capacity and efficiency. This added capacity

will be needed to accommodate additional passenger loads that are

expected to accompany the further development of downtown Newark. This development includes the location of a new professional

sports complex located in Newark. This project has been authorized

in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $3,000,000 in new

starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal Streetcar 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 Carrollton 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 historic areas, where employment and

housing densities, mix of uses, and pedestrian-oriented development are generally good. The central business district includes a

high-density mix of office, retail, hotels and leisure attractions. The

total capital cost of this project is estimated at $156,600,000, of

which RTA is expected to seek $125,300,000 (80 percent) in section

5309 new starts funding. RTA completed a major investment study

for this project in March 1995, fulfilling the requirement for an alternatives analysis. FTA approved entry into preliminary engineering in September 1995, and RTA initiated final design activities in

September 1997. Final design is essentially complete, contracts for

vehicle assembly have been awarded, and construction contracts

will be awarded in early 2001. This project has been rated ‘‘medium-high’’ for project justification and ‘‘medium’’ for local financial

commitment, earning it an overall rating of ‘‘recommended.’’ The fi-
138

nancial rating reflects the fact that sufficient local capital funds are

now committed to this project, as well as improvements to the stability of the agency due to an extension in the scope of the RTA

sales tax. RTA expects to open this line in April 2004. Section

3030(a)(51) of TEA21 authorizes the New Orleans Canal Streetcar

Project for final design and construction. To date, Congress has appropriated a total of $55,180,000 for this project. The Committee

has recommended $23,000,000 in new starts funding for this

project in fiscal year 2002.

New York, New York, Second Avenue Subway project.—The New

York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is planning to

develop a full-length Second Avenue subway line along the East

Side of Manhattan from 125th Street to the Financial District in

Lower Manhattan pursuant to approvals by the MTA Board and

the MTA Capital Program Review Board. The East Side of Manhattan has only one rapid transit line (Lexington Avenue). The line experiences significant overcrowding during peak periods. In 1995,

the line carried approximately 288,000 inbound daily passenger

trips. There is limited additional capacity to expand bus service.

The specific alignment of the full-length subway line is being developed by two coordinated studies: Manhattan East Side Alternatives

(MESA) Study and the Lower Manhattan Access (LMA) Study.

FTA is sponsoring both studies. The MESA Study has completed a

Major Investment Study/Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(MIS/DEIS) on the northern segment of the Second Avenue subway

from 125th Street to the 63rd Street subway line. The LMA Study

is completing an MIS/DEIS on the southern segment of the Second

Avenue subway from 63rd Street to Lower Manhattan. FTA and

the MTA are developing an approach to complete the planning and

environmental review process for the full-length Second Avenue

subway using these two studies. The MTA has included

$1,050,000,000 in its fiscal year 2000–fiscal year 2004 Capital Program for planning, environmental review, design and engineering,

and the initiation of construction by the end of 2004. This project

has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended

$3,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year

2002.

Newark, New Jersey Newark Rail Link project.—The New Jersey

Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is planning a 1-mile, five-station

extension of the Newark City Subway light rail line, running from

Broad Street Station in Newark to Newark Penn Station. This

project is planned as the first minimum operable segment (MOS–

1) of a proposed 8.8-mile, 16-station light rail system that will link

the cities of Newark and Elizabeth, New Jersey. The second stage

is a planned 1-mile segment from Newark Penn Station to Camp

Street in downtown Newark, and the third is the planned remaining 7-mile segment to Elizabeth, which includes a station serving

Newark International Airport. The total cost of the MOS–1 segment is estimated at $207,700,000. Section 3030(a)(57) of TEA21

authorized the New Jersey Urban Core Project, which consists of

eight separate elements including the Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link,

for final design and construction. On August 2, 2000 FTA issued

an FFGA committing a total of $141,950,000 in section 5309 new

starts funds to the Newark Rail Link MOS–1 project. Through fis-
139

cal year 2000, Congress has appropriated a total of $29,680,000 for

this project. An additional $9,910,000 was provided in fiscal year

2001. The Committee has recommended $20,000,000 in new starts

funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Northeast Indianapolis downtown corridor project.—The I–69/

SR37 corridor connecting Indianapolis’ central business district

with its northeast suburbs is one of the fastest growing corridors

in the nation. Along with other transportation solutions, this proposed rail project will help alleviate the extreme traffic congestion

that has resulted from this economies expansion. This system also

will help distribute workers to job centers. In addition to this heavily congested corridor, planners are currently examining the feasibility of a line to the city’s west side connecting with the rapidly

expanding Indianapolis International Airport. Also, the City of Indianapolis has approved a privately-funded overhead people mover

system linking the city’s major healthcare facilities, and linkage between this system and the adjacent rail corridor are also being examined. The Major Investment Study (MIS) and the Draft Environmental Study (DEIS) are in the final analysis phase, with final recommendations projected for September 2001. There needs to be

funding to continue additional study efforts concerning the proposed airport line plus the initial design costs. This project has

been approved by the TEA21 authorization and the Major Investment Study (MIS) and the Draft Environmental Impact Study

(DEIS) should be completed in September of 2001. The Committee

has recommended $3,000,000 in new starts funding for this project

in fiscal year 2002.

Pawtucket, Rhode Island, commuter rail and maintenance facility

project.—The existing Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority layover/storage yard at East Junction, located in the heavily residential area in Attleboro, needs to be relocated to a 9-acre parcel located in the northwest quadrant of I–95 and Smithfield Avenue in

Pawtucket. A six track yard with light servicing capabilities will be

constructed initially. The yard will be designed to accommodate

eight tracks and an electrified maintenance facility in the future.

The Federal share of the project is $9,500,000 (50 percent), the rest

of the project is being funded through the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RIDOT) and the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority. TEA21 authorized $10,000,000 in section 5309 in the

FTA new start fund. To date RIDOT has received $495,321 in fiscal

year 2001 funds. The Committee has recommended $8,000,000 in

new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Schuylkill Valley Metro Project.—

The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA)

and the Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority (BARTA)

are conducting an Alternatives Analysis Study/Draft Environmental Impact Statement (AA/DEIS) for the Schuylkill Valley Corridor. The proposed corridor extends approximately 62 miles from

Philadelphia to Reading and parallels the following major congested roadways: Schuylkill Expressway (Interstate 76), US 422

Expressway and US Route 202. The corridor includes the smaller

cities of Norristown, Pottstown and Phoenixville. The corridor also

includes suburban centers of King of Prussia and Great Valley, as

well as regional activity centers and attractions including Center
140

City Philadelphia, Art Museum, Philadelphia Zoo, King of Prussia

Malls, Valley Forge National Park and Reading outlets. The proposed corridor encompasses three transit authorities: SEPTA,

BARTA and Pottstown Urban Transit (PUT) and two metropolitan

planning regions: Delaware Valley and Berks County. Commuter

rail service currently operates in the eastern portion of the corridor

with rail freight service operations in the western portion of the

corridor. A locally preferred alternative (LPA) has been chosen by

SEPTA and BARTA, but has not been adopted into the fiscally constrained long-range plans of the respective urbanized areas. The

LPA would employ rail vehicle suitable for operation on mixed-use

(passenger or freight) track, capable of one-man operation and with

15 and 30-minute headways in the peak and off peak, respectively.

Total capital costs for the LPA are estimated at $1,400,000,000. A

preliminary DEIS is currently under review by FTA prior to its

public release before in the end of 2000. Work has commenced on

the preparation of supporting documentation for entry into preliminary engineering (PE). Project sponsors plan to submit a request

to FTA to enter PE before the end of 2000. Through fiscal year

2001, Congress has provided $16,810,000 in section 5309 new

starts funds for the proposed Schuylkill Valley Corridor. In addition, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, the

Philadelphia Area metropolitan planning organization, is studying

a proposed Regional Transit Oriented Development Program in the

corridor under a Transportation and Community and System Preservation (TCSP) grant. This project has been authorized in TEA21.

The Committee has recommended $16,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

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 and the Convention

Center. The North Shore connector LRT stations and modifications

of the Gateway Center and Steel Plaat stations, and the acquisition

of 10 new light rail vehicles. The alternatives analysis was competed 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. The Committee has recommended

$10,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year

2002.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Stage II LRT Reconstruction project.—

The Port Authority of Allegheny County (‘‘Port Authority’’) is in the

process of reconstructing Pittsburgh’s old 25-mile trolley lines to

modern light rail standards. The reconstruction is taking place in

two stages. The Stage I Light Rail Transit (LRT) project, undertaken in the 1980s, included reconstruction of the first segment

and construction of Pittsburgh’s first subway. Ground was broken
141

on the Stage I LRT project in December 1980, and the reconstruction of this segment was completed in 1987. The Stage II LRT

project includes reconstruction of the remaining 12 miles of the system, which consists of the Overbrook, Library and Drake trolley

lines, to modern LRT standards. Single-track segments will be double-tracked, the Overbook and Drake lines (which are currently

closed) would be reopened, and 28 new light rail vehicles would be

purchased. In order to prioritize program needs against financing

requirements, Port Authority reconfigured its rail improvement

program in 1999. As a result, the Stage II LRT project will itself

be undertaken in segments. The revised Stage II LRT Priority Program includes reconstruction of 10.7 miles on both the Overbrook

Line and a portion of the Library Line, construction of 2,400 parkand-ride spaces, and the purchase of 28 light rail vehicles. The

total capital cost of the Stage II Priority Program is estimated at

$386,400,000. The remaining portions of the original Stage II LRT

project will be undertaken as local funding becomes available. Section 3030(a)(98) authorizes the ‘‘Pittsburgh—Stage II Light Rail’’ project for final design and construction. 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 2000, a total of $11,820,000 has been appropriated for this

project, and an additional $11,890,000 was provided in fiscal year

2001. The Committee has recommended $20,000,000 in new starts

funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Portland, Oregon Interstate MAX LRT Extension project.—The

Tri-County Metropolitan Transit District of Oregon (Tri-Met) is

planning a 5.8-mile, 10-station extension of the Metropolitan Area

Express (‘‘MAX’’) light rail system, which will connect Portland’s

central business district with the regional Exposition Center in

north Portland. Riders will be able to transfer between the Interstate MAX extension and the existing 33-mile East/West MAX line

at the Rose Quarter station. This line will complement regional

land use plans by connecting established residential, commercial,

entertainment and other major activity centers, and will provide a

key transportation link in the region’s welfare-to-work programs.

The total cost of the Interstate MAX project is estimated at

$350,000,000. Tri-Met estimates that the Interstate MAX extension

will serve 18,100 average weekday boardings and 8,400 daily new

riders by 2020. On September 20, 2000, FTA and Tri-Met entered

into an FFGA that commits a total of $257,500,000 in section 5309

new starts funds to the Interstate MAX project. This does not include funding appropriated in prior years that was allocated to

Portland Metro for the 12-mile South-North light rail line originally proposed for this corridor. The fiscal year 2001 appropriation

provided $7,430,000 for the Interstate MAX light rail extension.

The Committee has recommended $70,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Raleigh, North Carolina, triangle transit project.—The Phase I

Regional Rail project is the first proposed segment of a threephased 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
142

downtown Raleigh to North Raleigh. TTA proposes to use Diesel

Multiple Unit (DMU) rail vehicles to serve the 16 stations proposed

for the Phase I of the project. 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 corridor proposed to be used by TTA for the project is shared among a number

of railroads, thus, TTA is considering a number of track realignments to accommodate proposed inter-city and high-speed rail improvements. This project has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $9,000,000 in new starts funding for this

project in fiscal year 2002.

St. Louis, Missouri, Metrolink St. Clair Extension project.—The

Bi-State Development Agency (Bi-State) is developing a 26-mile extension of the Metrolink light rail line from downtown East St.

Louis, Illinois to the Mid-America Airport in St. Clair County. A

17.4-mile Minimum Operable Segment (MOS) will extend from the

current Metrolink terminal in downtown East St. Louis to Belleville Area College (now known as Southwest Illinois College). This

segment consists of eight stations, seven park-and-ride lots, 20 new

light rail vehicles, and a new maintenance facility in East St.

Louis. The route makes extensive use of abandoned railroad rightsof-way. Right-of-way and real estate acquisition is proceeding as

scheduled, and revenue service is scheduled to begin in 2001. The

total capital cost of the St. Clair MOS is estimated at $339,200,000.

On October 17, 1996, FTA and Bi-State entered into an FFGA that

commits a total of $243,930,000 in section 5309 new starts funding

to complete the 17.4-mile MOS to Southwest Illinois College, and

provides for extending the system to Mid-America Airport should

funding become available at a later date. The funding committed

to the MOS does not include $8,490,000 in Federal new starts

funding provided prior to fiscal year 1996, which brings total Federal funding for this project to $252,410,000 under the new starts

program. Through fiscal year 2000, a total of $161,880,000 has

been appropriated for this project. The fiscal year 2001 appropriation provided an additional $59,440,000. The Committee has recommended $24,223,268 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Stamford, Connecticut, urban transitway project.—The City of

Stamford, in coordination with the Connecticut Department of

Transportation (ConnDOT), and the Southwestern Regional Planning Agency, is proposing to design and construct a one-mile Urban

Transitway. This will consist of a bus lane, shared with high occupancy vehicles, that will provide a direct link from Interstate 95 to

the Stamford Intermodal Transportation Center (SITC). The Urban

Transitway project will include changes to the bus routes serving

the SITC, improved pedestrian access, and the implementation of
143

intelligent transportation systems (ITS). The SITC serves as a

major transfer point for local bus and employer shuttle service and

provides access to existing Amtrak and Metro-North rail service in

the Northeast corridor. Currently, Metro-North operates 190 daily

trains that stop at the SITC and approximately 2,500 riders use

the service in the peak hours to commute from Stamford to New

York City, while 1,500 riders travel inbound to employment opportunities in Stamford. To accommodate additional commuter capacity at the SITC, the City is expanding rail platform capacity and

constructing a 1,200-space parking facility. This project has been

authorized in TEA21 under section 5309(e)(8)(A). The Committee

has recommended $4,000,000 in new starts funding for this project

in fiscal year 2002.

Salt Lake City, Utah, CBD to University LRT project.—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 line is intended to significantly improve

access to jobs, educational opportunities, health care, and housing

throughout the 400 South corridor. The CBD to University line is

scaled back from the originally proposed 10.9-mile West/East line

from the airport to the university. Total capital costs are estimated

at $105,800,000. 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 fiscal year 2001. The

Committee has recommended $15,000,000 in new starts funding for

this project in fiscal year 2002.

Salt Lake City, Utah, University Medical Center LRT extension

project.—The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) has completed construction of a 15-mile light rail transit (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) and then follows a lightly-used railroad

alignment owned by UTA to the suburban community of Sandy (13

miles). A 2.5 mile light rail line extension is under construction

connecting the Salt Lake City CBD with Rice-Eccles stadium located at the western edge of the University of Utah campus. The

Committee notes that the University of Utah, the University Medical Center and associated facilities constitute one of Utah’s largest

traffic generation points. Significant ridership will be served by

this project which will add 3 stations and 1.5 miles of track extending from Rice-Eccles stadium to the University Medical Center. The

Committee has recommended $6,000,000 in new starts funding for

this project in fiscal year 2002.

Salt Lake City, Utah, Salt Lake City-Ogden-Provo Commuter Rail

project.—The Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) and the

Moutainlands Association of Governments (MAG) the two metro-
144

politan planning organizations that oversee transportation planning for more than 85 percent of the State of Utah’s population,

along with the Utah Transit Authority and the Utah Department

of Transportation, are conducting an Alternatives Analysis (InterRegional Corridor Alternatives Analysis) study to evaluate transportation improvements in a proposed 120-mile corridor from

Brigham City to Payson. The corridor encompasses the Ogden, Salt

Lake City and Provo/Orem urbanized areas. The study is evaluating highway and transit alternatives in the corridor. The study

is scheduled for completion in March 2001. WFRC and MAG completed a Long-Range Transit Analysis in 1998, identifying commuter rail as an effective means of serving the transportation demands in the corridor between Brigham City and Payson. A commuter rail line, with twelve stations, has been identified and evaluated and subsequently included in the region’s Long Range Transportation Plan. Discussions are underway with the Union-Pacific

Railroad concerning the acquisition of railroad right-of-way to implement commuter rail, light rail or other transportation improvements. Total capital costs are estimated at $292,000,000. Through

fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $3,900,000 in section

5309 new starts funds for this effort. Consideration has been given

to a proposed option of implementing interim commuter rail service

during the Olympic 2002 Winter Games. The Committee has recommended $2,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

San Diego, California, Mission Valley East LRT Extension

project.—The Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) is

constructing a 5.9-mile, 4-station light rail extension of its existing

Blue Line, from east of Interstate 15 to the City of La Mesa, where

it will connect to the existing Orange Line near Baltimore Drive.

The Mission Valley East line will serve four new and two existing

stations, and would include elevated, at-grade, and tunnel portions.

The project includes two park and ride lots and a new access road

between Waring Road and the Grantville Station. The corridor

runs parallel to Interstate 8 in eastern San Diego and La Mesa,

and is characterized by a mix of low- to moderate-density industrial, residential, and commercial uses, but includes several major

activity centers such as San Diego State University, the Grossmont

regional shopping center, Kaiser Hospital, the Alvarado Medical

Center, and the Grantville employment area. Over 24,000 jobs and

nearly 10,000 residences are located within walking distance of the

proposed stations, and existing zoning is generally supportive of

transit. Total capital costs are estimated at $431,000,000. On June

22, 2000, FTA issued an FFGA committing a total of $329,960,000

in section 5309 new starts funding to this project. Through fiscal

year 2000, Congress has appropriated $22,110,000 for this project,

and an additional $31,210,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001.

The Committee has recommended $65,000,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

San Francisco, California, BART Extension to SFO Airport

project.—Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) in San Francisco and the

San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) are constructing an

8.7-mile, 4-station extension of the BART rapid transit system to

serve San Francisco International Airport (SFO). The project con-
145

sists of a 7.5-mile mainline extension from the existing BART station at Colma, through Colma, south San Francisco, and San

Bruno, terminating at the Millbrae Avenue BART/CalTrain Station. An additional 1.2-mile spur from the main line north of

Millbrae will take BART trains directly into the airport, to a station adjoining the new International Terminal. The San Francisco

International Airport is a major partner in this project. All structures and facilities to be constructed on airport property, and installation of related equipment, are being funded, designed and

constructed by the airport for BART. This project is also part of the

FTA Turnkey Demonstration Program to determine if the design/

build approach will reduce implementation time and cost. On July

24, 1997, the first contract was awarded for site preparation and

utility relocation associated with this project. Bids for the main

contract for construction of the line, trackwork and related systems

were opened on November 25, 1997. On June 30, 1997, FTA entered into an FFGA for the BART–SFO extension, committing a total of $750,000,000 in Federal new starts funds to the project;

total capital costs at that time were estimated at $1,054,000,000.

The total cost has since increased to an estimated $1,510,200,000;

a recent surge in local construction activity has resulted in higher

than estimated costs for construction of this project. Per the terms

of the FFGA, any cost increases are the responsibility of the local

project sponsors. Thus, the original Federal commitment is unchanged at $750,000,000. Through fiscal year 2000, a total of

$217,190,000 has been appropriated for this project. An additional

$79,250,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001. This project has been

authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended

$80,605,331 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year

2002.

San Jose, California, Tasman West LRT 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 1 West Extension

will connect the northern terminus of the Guadalupe Light Rail

System in Santa Clara with the Caltrain Commuter Rail station in

downtown Mountain View, a distance of 7.6 miles; the future Phase

2 East Extension will complete the remaining 4.8 miles. The total

capital cost of the Phase 1 West project was $325,000,000. Construction is complete and the Phase I West Extension opened for

revenue service on December 17, 1999, a year ahead of schedule.

The Phase II East Extension is being funded with State and local

funds. An FFGA was issued for Phase 1 of this project on July 2,

1996, providing a total of $182,750,000 in section 5309 new starts

funding. A total of $170,500,000 was provided in fiscal year 2000

and prior years, and an additional $12,140,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001. The Committee has recommended $113,336 in new

starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

San Juan/Tren Urbano.—The Puerto Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTPW) is constructing a 10.7-mile, 16-

station rapid rail line between Bayamon Centro and the Sagrado

Corazon area of Santurce in the San Juan metropolitan area. The
146

system consists of a double-track line operating over at-grade and

elevated rights-of-way with a short below-grade segment, and a

maintenance facility. When complete, this system is expected to

carry 113,300 riders per day by 2010. This project has been selected as one of FTA’s turnkey demonstration projects, which incorporates contracts to design, build, operate, and maintain the system. During 1996 and 1997, seven contracts were awarded under

the turnkey procurement. The total capital cost of this project is

now estimated at $1,653,600,000. On March 13, 1996, FTA entered

into an FFGA committing $307,410,000 in section 5309 new starts

funds to this project, out of a total project cost of $1,250,000,000.

This did not include $4,960,000 in Federal new starts funding provided prior to fiscal year 1996, which brings total Federal new

starts funding for this project to $312,370,000. This FFGA was

amended in July 1999 to include two additional stations and 10 additional railcars. This amendment included $141,000,000 in section

5307 funds and $259,900,000 in flexible funding; no additional section 5309 new starts funds were committed. A total of $84,630,000

in section 5309 funds has been allocated to the Tren Urbano project

in fiscal year 2000 and prior years, and an additional $74,300,000

was appropriated in fiscal year 2001. The Committee has recommended $50,149,000 in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Scranton, Pennsylvania, rail service to New York City.—The

Scranton to New York City Passenger Rail Service project involves

the addition of new passenger rail service with a total of eight station stops—five in Pennsylvania (Scranton, Mt. Pocono,

Stroudsburg, East Stroudsburg, and Deleware Water Gap) and

three in New Jersey (Morristown, the Oranges, and Hoboken).

When completed, the rail line is expected to carry 684,000 riders

annually. Freight track already exists along much of this route,

with the exception of a 26-mile stretch in New Jersey from the

Deleware Water Gap to Port Morris. The goal of this project is to

provide commuters with an alternate source of public transportation in New York City while reducing congestion along I–80. The

Committee has recommended $2,500,000 in new starts funding for

this project in fiscal year 2002.

Puget Sound, Washington, Sounder Commer Rail project.—Sound

Transit, the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, is

implementing commuter rail service along the 82-mile existing rail

corridor between Lakewood and Everett, Washington. When the

Sound Move enabling legislation is fully implemented, Sounder will

serve 13 stations along the corridor, connecting commuters with

local and regional bus service, the Washington State ferry system,

Amtrak, the Central Link light rail system, and Tacoma Link. Currently, Sounder commuter rail is providing weekday service during

peak hours at seven stations between downtown Tacoma and Seattle. Once in full operation, 18 trains will serve the Lakewood-Tacoma-Seattle Sounder segment, and 12 trains will serve the Everett-Seattle segment. By 2020, Sounder is estimated to carry 18,800

daily riders. To date, $60,850,000 has been appropriated for the 82-

mile corridor. For fiscal year 2002, the bill includes $24,500,000 for

Sounder commuter rail to develop facilities between Tacoma and

Lakewood to the south.
147

Sioux City, Iowa, light rail project.—A feasibility study was conducted in fiscal year 1998 regarding a light rail project in Sioux

City. Sioux City Transit is now waiting for the final steps to complete this project. It has been authorized in TEA21 for a total of

$10,000,000. The Committee has recommended $3,500,000 in new

starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Stockton, California, Altamont Commuter Rail project.—The San

Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), the Alameda Congestion Management Agency, and the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority have proposed to implement a commuter rail system along an existing Union-Pacific Railroad right-of-way operating

between the three counties. A Joint Powers Board comprised of

members from each of the three agencies was also created to operate the proposed Altamont Commuter Express. The SJRRC would

be the managing agency for the initial 36-month term of an agreement executed between the three agencies. In addition to identifying potential sources for capital and operating funds, the member

agencies will define the methods for allocating future costs and the

shares of future capital improvement contributions from the member agencies. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated

$6,910,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for this effort. The

Committee has recommended $5,000,000 in new starts funding for

this project in fiscal year 2002.

Twin Cities, 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), are proposing to design and construct an

11.6-mile Light Rail Transit (LRT) line within the Hiawatha Corridor. The proposed LRT will operate on the Hiawatha Avenue/

Trunk Highway 55 Corridor linking downtown Minneapolis, the

Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP) International Airport, and the Mall of

America (MOA) in Bloomington. The LRT is the transit component

of a Locally Preferred Alternative, which includes the 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–62 (Crosstown Highway). Current plans call

for the north end of the LRT to begin in the 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 Humphrey Metrodome, following the former Soo Line Railroad to Franklin Avenue then generally 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 underground station and one at-grade station. The Metropolitan Airports

Commission (MAC) will be responsible for the portion of the line

that impacts the MSP, including the tunnel and stations. The line

is then planned to emerge from the tunnel on the West Side of the

airport and continue south with three proposed stations in Bloomington, including a station serving the Mall of America (MOA). The

estimated capital cost for the 11.6-mile Hiawatha Corridor LRT, including 17 proposed stations, totals $675,400,000 (escalated dollars). The project is expected to serve 24,800 average weekday

boardings by the year 2020; 19,300 average weekday boardings are
148

projected in the opening year. This project has been authorized in

TEA21. The Committee has recommended $50,000,000 in new

starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.

Virginia, Burke Center VRE Station.—This project would include

the design and construction of the expansion of the existing 543

space surface parking lot. Utilization is averaging 95 percent and

is steadily increasing as VRE’s ridership is increasing. The need for

an increased space for parking is a result of improved road access

to the station; new higher capacity coaches being placed in service

by VRE; and new transit fare discounts being offered to attract

more public transportation users. A feasibility study, currently in

the planing stage, will determine whether a surface or structured

facility is needed. VRE received $3,000,000 in fiscal year 2001. The

Committee has recommended a total of $4,000,000 in new starts

funding for this and other VRE improvements in fiscal year 2002.

Wasilla, Alaska, alternate route project.—The current population

density in the Parks Highway corridor in the Wasilla area will support commuter rail operations if the trip time for the Alaska Railroad can be reduced by track improvements and relocations. This

project has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee recommendation provides $2,500,000 for track upgrades, relocations,

and signalizations to foster the development of the Alaska Railroad

commuter rail service to Wasilla, Alaska.

Wilmington, Delaware, Wilmington Transit Connector project.—

The Delaware Department of Transportation and the City of Wilmington conducted a study to address transportation needs between major employment, commercial and entertainment venues in

the city. The locally preferred alternative is a trolley line, approximately 2.1 miles in length, 0.6 miles of exclusive right-of-way.

Total capital costs are currently estimated at $37,000,000. No environmental work has been undertaken for this effort. Work is underway, in consultation with FTA, in revising and supplementing

the existing materials to support a request to FTA for entry into

preliminary engineering. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has

appropriated $5,930,000 in new starts funds for this effort. The

Committee has recommended $4,000,000 in new starts funding for

this project in fiscal year 2002.

Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System Project.—The Yosemite Area Regional Transportation System (YARTS) is a fixed

route transit system providing service between and among the Yosemite region’s gateway communities and Yosemite National Park.

YARTS is a joint powers authority formed by the counties of

Merced, Mono and Mariposa with transportation to visitors and

workers of the park. Funds would be used to help increase participation in the YARTS program, which served 20,000 individuals last

year. The Committee has recommended $500,000 in new starts

funding for this project in fiscal year 2002.
149

JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE GRANTS

General fund Trust fund Total

Appropriations, 2001 1 ....................................................... $20,000,000 $80,000,000 $100,000,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ..................................................... 25,000,000 100,000,000 125,000,000

Committee recommendation .............................................. 25,000,000 100,000,000 125,000,000

1 Does not reflect rescission of $220,000 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

The Committee recommends $125,000,000 for the Job Access and

Reverse Commute Grants program, the level guaranteed under the

TEA21 transit category firewall. This program is meant to help

welfare reform efforts succeed by providing enhanced transportation services for low-income individuals, including former welfare

recipients, traveling to jobs or training centers.

The program makes competitive grants to qualifying metropolitan planning organizations, local governmental authorities, agencies, and nonprofit organizations in urbanized areas with populations greater than 200,000. Grants may not be used for planning

or coordination activities.

The Committee recommends the following allocations of job access and reverse commute grant program funds in fiscal year 2002:

Project Amount

AC Transit, California ........................................................................... $2,000,000

Allegheny County Port Authority, Pennsylvania ................................ 2,000,000

Atlanta Regional Commission, Georgia ............................................... 1,000,000

Austin, Texas ......................................................................................... 500,000

Baton Rouge, Louisiana ........................................................................ 750,000

Buncombe County, North Carolina ...................................................... 100,000

Central Arkansas Transit Authority, Arkansas .................................. 500,000

Central Ohio Transit Authority, Ohio .................................................. 1,000,000

Charlotte Area Transit, North Carolina .............................................. 500,000

Chicago Regional Transportation Authority, Illinois .......................... 500,000

Corpus Christi Regional Transit Authority, Texas ............................. 550,000

Galveston, Texas .................................................................................... 600,000

Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation, Indiana ................. 1,000,000

Jefferson County, Alabama ................................................................... 2,000,000

Kenai Peninsula Transit Planning, Alaska ......................................... 500,000

Lancaster County, Pennsylvania .......................................................... 198,000

Lehigh and Northampton Transportation Authority, Pennsylvania .................................................................................................... 250,000

Los Angeles County, California ............................................................ 2,000,000

Macon/Bibb County, Georgia ................................................................ 400,000

MASCOT Matanuska, Susitna Valley, Alaska .................................... 200,000

Mass Transportation Authority, Michigan .......................................... 1,000,000

Oglala Sioux Tribe, North Dakota ....................................................... 150,000

Phoenix Regional Transportation, Arizona .......................................... 240,000

Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority, New York .. 400,000

Sacramento Area Council of Governments, California ....................... 2,000,000

Salem Area Transit, Oregon ................................................................. 700,000

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, California ................. 500,000

Santa Fe, New Mexico ........................................................................... 630,000

Southeast Missouri Council, Missouri ................................................. 2,000,000

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Pennsylvania .................................................................................................... 6,000,000

State of Connecticut .............................................................................. 3,500,000

State of Delaware .................................................................................. 750,000

State of Idaho ......................................................................................... 300,000

State of Iowa .......................................................................................... 1,700,000

State of Maryland .................................................................................. 5,000,000

State of New Jersey ............................................................................... 3,000,000

State of New Mexico .............................................................................. 2,000,000

State of Ohio .......................................................................................... 1,500,000
150

Project Amount

State of Oklahoma ................................................................................. 4,500,000

State of Pennsylvania ............................................................................ 1,500,000

State of Rhode Island ............................................................................ 2,000,000

State of Tennessee ................................................................................. 6,000,000

State of Washington .............................................................................. 3,000,000

State of West Virginia ........................................................................... 800,000

State of Wisconsin ................................................................................. 5,200,000

Seward Transit Service, Alaska ........................................................... 200,000

Tri-Met Region, Oregon ......................................................................... 1,800,000

Tuscaloosa, Alabama ............................................................................. 1,000,000

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, Washington,

DC ........................................................................................................ 2,500,000

Westchester County, New York ............................................................ 500,000

State of Maryland.—The Committee provides $5,000,000 to the

Maryland Department of Transportation for Section 3037 Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants. The Committee expects Maryland Department of Transportation to fund the following project:

(1) $800,000 to Montgomery County to operate the County’s transit

system during expanded hours of service; (2) $200,000 to Sojourner-Douglass College in Baltimore, Maryland for the College’s

Workforce Transportation and Referral.

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (the Corporation) is a wholly owned Government corporation established by

the Saint Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954. The Corporation

is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and development of

the United States portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between

Montreal and Lake Erie. The Corporation’s major priorities include: safety, reliability, trade development, and management accountability.

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $13,004,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 13,345,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 13,345,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $28,609 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and

revenues from non-federal sources finances the operation and

maintenance of the Seaway for which the corporation is responsible.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $13,345,000 to fully

fund the operations and maintenance of the Corporation. The Committee recommendation provides sufficient funding for the Corporation’s highest capital priorities and the projects recommended by

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers after its survey and evaluation

of the Corporation’s lock and maintenance practices. The Committee requests a report on the Seaway’s efforts at ballast water

management and its efforts to coordinate with the Coast Guard to

control non-indigenous aquatic nuisance species.
151

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

The Research and Special Programs Administration [RSPA] was

established by the Secretary of Transportation’s organizational

changes dated July 20, 1977, and serves as a research, analytical,

and technical development arm of the Department for multimodal

research and development, as well as special programs. Particular

emphasis is given to pipeline transportation and the transportation

of hazardous cargo by all modes. In 2002, resources are requested

for the management and execution of the Offices of Hazardous Materials Safety, Emergency Transportation, Pipeline Safety, and program and administrative support. Funds are also requested for the

emergency preparedness grants program. RSPA’s two reimbursable

programs—Transportation Safety Institute [TSI] and the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center [VNTSC]—support research

safety and security programs for all modes of transportation.

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $36,373,000

Budget estimate, 2002 2 ......................................................................... 41,993,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 41,993,000

1Does not reflect rescission of $80,021 pursuant to Public Law 106–554. 2Does not includes reduction of $12,000,000 in proposed user fees.

The Committee has provided a total of $41,993,000 for the ‘‘Research and special programs’’ account, which is the same as the

budget request.

The following table summarizes the Committee recommendations:

Fiscal year 2001

enacted 1

Fiscal year 2002

estimate

Committee recommendation

Hazardous materials safety .............................................. $18,750,000 $21,217,000 $21,217,000

(FTE) ......................................................................... (129) (132) (132)

Emergency transportation ................................................. $1,831,000 $1,897,000 $1,897,000

(FTE) ......................................................................... (9) (9) (9)

Research and technology .................................................. $4,700,000 $4,759,000 $4,759,000

(FTE) ......................................................................... (9) (9) (9)

Program and administrative support ................................ $11,092,000 $14,060,000 $14,060,000

(FTE) ......................................................................... (50) (57) (57)

Total, research and special programs ................ $36,373,000 $41,993,000 $41,993,000

1 Does not reflect $80,021 rescission pursuant to Public Law 106–554.

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY

The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety [OHMS] administers a

nationwide program of safety regulations to fulfill the Secretary’s

duty to protect the Nation from the risks to life, health, and property that are inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials

by water, air, highway, and railroad. OHMS plans, implements,

and manages the hazardous materials transportation program consisting of information systems, research and analysis, inspection

and enforcement, rulemaking support, training and information

dissemination, and emergency procedures.

The Committee recommends $21,217,000 for hazardous materials

safety, which is the same as the budget request.
152

EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION

Emergency transportation [ET] programs provide support to the

Secretary of Transportation for his statutory and administrative responsibilities in the area of transportation civil emergency preparedness and response. This program develops and coordinates

the Department’s policies, plans, and programs, in headquarters

and the field to provide for emergency preparedness.

ET is responsible for implementing the Transportation Department’s National Security Program initiatives, including an assessment of the transportation implications of the changing global

threat. The Office also coordinates civil emergency preparedness

and response for transportation services during national and regional emergencies, across the entire continuum of crises, including

natural catastrophes such as earthquakes, hurricanes and tornados, and international and domestic terrorism. The Office of

Emergency Transportation develops crisis management plans to

mitigate disasters and implements these plans nationally and regionally in an emergency.

The Committee recommends $1,897,000 for emergency transportation, which is the same as the budget request.

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

The Committee recommends $4,759,000 for the Office of Research and Technology, which is the same as the budget request.

The funds provided will help the Department coordinate and

strengthen its responsibilities under TEA21, and will help support

the R&T organizational excellence strategy specified in the Department’s strategic plan, allow RSPA to support the intergovernmental transportation research coordination responsibilities of the

National Science and Technology Council, and support a limited

intermodal research program.

The Committee supports the request for R&D planning. These

funds are used to conduct a diversity of activities of fundamental

importance to the Department and to help coordinate transportation-related research throughout the Government. For example,

these funds are used to support technology transfer and in particular to ensure that R&T advances made in the international

arena are made available to various modes within the Department.

These planning funds are the sole source for longer-term, visionary

R&T planning in the Department. In addition, these funds are used

to support research and education planning that applies to all of

the modes. Most importantly, one of the key purposes of these

funds is to eliminate any duplication of research within the DOT.

Research and development program initiatives.—The National

Transportation Safety Board has recommended to the Department

of Transportation that research be conducted on the role of fatigue

in the transportation industry. Consistent with that recommendation, the Committee has provided $300,000, which is the amount

requested for R&D planning and management to support longterm, cross-cutting research on transportation operator fatigue

management.
153

PROGRAM AND ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT

The program support function provides legal, financial, management, and administrative support to the operating offices within

RSPA. These support activities include executive direction (Office

of the Administrator), program and policy support, civil rights and

special programs, legal services and support, and management and

administration.

The Committee has provided $14,060,000 for program and administrative support, which is consistent with the budget request.

Business modernization.—The Committee’s allowance includes

the 7 FTEs (all 14 new positions to be funded at .5 FTE each) and

the $2,600,000 requested for business modernization. This new initiative is required to ensure that both the pipeline safety and hazardous materials transportation programs are underpinned with

information technologies and administrative support that will promote effective program implementation. RSPA, compared to its sister agencies, has not received the funding needed to build the information technology (IT) infrastructure—servers, communications

lines, security apparatus—to become citizen-centered in the Internet era. Without this IT infrastructure, the public is forced to rely

on less than satisfactory ways to request and receive information

on the location of pipelines so they can make intelligent decisions

about where to build schools, hospitals, and high-density housing.

Without this infrastructure, companies reporting hazardous materials incidents or pipeline failures will continue to have to report

these releases using paper forms instead of using the Internet.

Without this infrastructure, companies and individuals will have to

continue filing applications for hazardous materials registration,

exemptions, and approvals by mail, fax, or phone instead of over

the Internet.

The Committee directs RSPA to submit to both the House and

Senate Committees on Appropriations before February 1, 2002, a

strategic plan outlining the improvements in IT that will be made

during the next few years. The plan will specify the necessary steps

to be taken and funds needed to ensure that RSPA’s missions and

activities will be underpinned by a current IT with the capability

for upgrading. Obligations for most infrastructure improvements

will not be made until such a plan has been submitted.

The Committee also directs that RSPA use the additional funds

and positions recommended herein to ensure that the financial

management of each its accounts is brought under the direct control of the agency. As soon as possible, but before the end of fiscal

year 2002, RSPA will conduct all of its own accounting functions,

with perhaps the exception of minor disbursement activities that

may be contracted to FAA. This transfer of responsibility will allow

the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) to exercise improved management over the Pipeline Safety Fund and will help that office respond to recommendations issued by the General Accounting Office.

User fees.—The Committee disagrees with the budget request to

begin funding the hazardous materials safety program from user

fees. These fees are not authorized under current law.
154

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OILSPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

Pipeline safety

fund Trust fund Total

Appropriations, 2001 1 2 .................................................... $39,556,000 $7,488,000 $47,044,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ..................................................... 46,286,000 7,472,000 53,758,000

Committee recommendation 3 ........................................... 47,278,000 11,472,000 58,750,000

1 Does not reflect rescission of $103,497 pursuant to Public Law 106–554. 2 Pipeline safety funding includes $3,000,000 from reserve fund balances.

3 Pipeline safety funding includes $2,500,000 from reserve fund balances.

The Research and Special Programs Administration is responsible for the Department’s Pipeline Safety Program. Funding for

the Office of Pipeline Safety is made available from two primary

sources: the pipeline safety fund, comprised of user fees assessed

on interstate pipeline operators; and the oil spill liability trust

fund, a revolving fund comprised of an environmental tax on petroleum and oil spill damage recovery payments. The Pipeline Safety

Program promotes the safe, reliable, and environmentally sound

transportation of natural gas and hazardous liquids by pipeline.

This national program regulates the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and emergency response procedures pertaining

to gas and hazardous liquids pipeline systems and liquefied natural

gas facilities. Also included is research and development to support

the Pipeline Safety Program and grants-in-aid to State agencies

that conduct a qualified pipeline safety program and to others who

operate one-call programs.

The Committee’s recommendation for the Federal pipeline safety

program generally supports, and is consistent with, the key provisions of the Senate-passed version of the pipeline safety reauthorization bill. The Committee recommends $58,750,000 for the Department’s Pipeline Safety Program, which is $4,992,000 more than

the budget estimate. The bill specifies that, of the total appropriation, $47,278,000 shall be from the pipeline safety fund and

$11,472,000 shall be from the oil spill liability trust fund. Specific

adjustments to the budget estimate are listed below:

Change to Item budget estimate

Integrity management ........................................................................... ∂$3,000,000

Research and development ................................................................... ∂1,992,000

As indicated below, the Committee has added funds above the request to ensure a strong foundation for OPS initiatives to advance

integrity management of pipeline systems and to provide for a

stronger research and development program. The increased use of

the reserve in the Pipeline Safety Fund and the increased use of

the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund will provide for an equitable fee

assessment on both the interstate liquid and natural gas transmission companies.

Pipeline safety reserve fund.—The Committee recommends

$2,500,000 to be derived from amounts previously collected in pipeline user fees from interstate liquid and natural gas transmission

companies, which are maintained in a reserve fund by RSPA. As
155

of May 5, 2001 the balance in the fund is approximately

$11,915,000.

Oil spill liability trust fund.—The Committee recommends

$11,472,000 to be derived from the oil spill liability trust fund for

implementation of OPS responsibilities under the Oil Pollution Act

of 1990 (OPA), which is $4,000,000 more than the administration’s

request. OPS estimates that the total amount of the fiscal year

2002 pipeline safety budget request that could legally be associated

with OPA program requirements is $14,797,000.

Integrity Management Program.—The Committee recommends

$7,943,000 for integrity management, which is $3,000,000 more

than the amount requested. According to OPS, the integrity management regulations covering natural gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines constitute the single largest modification to

the Federal pipeline regulatory and oversight program in over a

decade. The additional funds are needed to ensure proper implementation of the new hazardous liquids pipeline safety regulations,

which become effective on January 1, 2002, and to lay the foundation for a similar regulatory strategy to cover the gas pipeline industry. In addition to new inspectors, OPS will need new regulatory, legal, contractual, and administrative support in the field

and at headquarters to maximize the effectiveness of this critical

oversight program.

The Committee’s allowance for the integrity management pro- gram includes $750,000 for OPS and State training, and adequate

funds to interpret pigging data submitted by industry, to witness

new construction of pipelines, and to develop improved information

systems needed to monitor and evaluate industry data supplied to

OPS.

New positions.—The Committee has approved OPS’s request for

26 new positions to support a new community based program and

to support the new integrity management program.

Research and development.—The Committee recommends

$4,736,000 for pipeline safety research, which is $1,992,000 more

than the amount requested. Within the funds provided, $600,000

shall be used for airborne environmental laser mapping technology

research and engineering to support improved leak detection, analysis, and response by Federal, State, and industry pipeline safety

officials.

Washington State Pipeline Safety Program.—Any amount of the

$800,000 unobligated in fiscal year 2001 for the Washington State

Pipeline Safety Program will be obligated in fiscal year 2002. The

Committee recommends that RSPA obligate the $800,000 as soon

as possible.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $200,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 200,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 200,000

1Does not reflect rescission of $440 pursuant to Public Law 106–554.

The hazardous materials transportation law (title 49 U.S.C. 5101

et seq.) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a reimburs-
156

able emergency preparedness grants program; (2) monitor public

sector emergency response training and planning and provide technical assistance to States, territories, and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a national training curriculum for

emergency responders. These activities are financed by receipts received from the hazardous materials shipper and carrier registration fees, which are placed in the emergency preparedness fund.

The hazardous materials transportation law provides permanent

authorization for the emergency preparedness fund for planning

and training grants, monitoring and technical assistance, and for

administrative expenses. An appropriation of $200,000 in budget

authority, also from the emergency preparedness fund, provides for

the training curriculum for emergency responders.

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

Bill language is included that limits the obligation of emergency

preparedness training grants to $14,300,000 in fiscal year 2002.

The Committee’s recommendation reflects the State grants total

funding that would be represented if the administration’s fiscal

year 2001 requested level was met.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $48,450,000

Budget estimate, 2002 2 ......................................................................... 50,614,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 50,614,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $108,790 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554. Does

not include reimbursement of $3,524,000 from the FHWA and transfer of $1,000,000 from FTA

pursuant to Public Law 106–346. 2Does not include reimbursements of $5,524,000 from FHWA and FTA.

The Inspector General Act of 1978 established the Office of Inspector General [OIG] as an independent and objective organization, with a mission to: (1) conduct and supervise audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the Department; (2) provide leadership and recommend policies designed to

promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration of programs and operations; (3) prevent and detect fraud,

waste, and abuse; and (4) keep the Secretary and Congress currently informed regarding problems and deficiencies.

OIG is divided into two major functional units: the Office of Assistant Inspector General for Auditing and the Office of Assistant

Inspector General for Investigations. The assistant inspectors general for auditing and investigations are supported by headquarters

and regional staff.

The Committee recommends $50,614,000.
157

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation Crediting offsetting

collections

Appropriations, 2001 1 ............................................................................. $17,954,000 ($900,000)

Budget estimate, 2002 ............................................................................ 18,457,000 (950,000)

Committee recommendation .................................................................... 18,457,000 (950,000)

1 Does not reflect reduction of $37,519 pursuant to section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

The Surface Transportation Board was created on January 1,

1996, by Public Law 104–88, the Interstate Commerce Committee

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 functions to the Board, and transferred motor licensing and

certain other motor functions to DOT and are now being administered by FMCSA. The Board is specifically responsible for the regulation of the rail and pipeline industries and certain nonlicensing

regulation of motor carriers and water carriers. Moreover, the

Board, through its exemption authority, is able to promote deregulation administratively on a case-by-case basis. Rail reforms made

by the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 also have been continued.

The administration’s fiscal year 2002 program request is

$18,457,000 to perform key functions under the ICCTA, including

rail rate reasonableness oversight; the processing of rail consolidations, abandonments, and constructions, other restructuring proposals; and labor arbitration appeals.

The Committee has provided $18,457,000 for activities of the

Board with $950,000 provide from the collection of user fees. The

Board is authorized to credit the fees collected to the appropriated

amount as offsetting collections and to be used for authorized expenses.

The Committee’s recommendation will fund a total of 143 fulltime staff equivalent (FTE) positions, if the Board collects the full

$950,000 in user fees. Between now and September 30, 2002, 34

percent of the Board’s employees will be eligible for voluntary retirement. The Committee encourages the Board to move expeditiously in filling vacancies as retirements occur in order to ensure

that the oversight functions of the Board are not compromised.

Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad (DM&E).—For more than

3 years, the Surface Transportation Board has been considering an

application on the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad. The

Committee believes that the board should complete action on this

proceeding. A petitioner has a legitimate expectation of receiving a

decision on an application within a reasonable period of time.
(158)

TITLE II—RELATED AGENCIES

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS

COMPLIANCE BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2001 1 ........................................................................... $4,795,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 5,015,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,015,000

1Does not include reduction of $11,000 pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106–113.

The Committee recommends $5,015,000 for the operations of the

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, the

funding level requested by the administration.

The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance

Board (the Access Board) is the lead Federal Agency promoting accessibility for all handicapped persons. The Access Board was reauthorized in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, Public

Law 102–569. Under this authorization, the Access Board’s functions are to ensure compliance with the Architectural Barriers Act

of 1968, and to develop guidelines for and technical assistance to

individuals and entities with rights or duties under titles II and III

of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Access Board establishes minimum accessibility guidelines and requirements for public accommodations and commercial facilities, transit facilities and

vehicles, State and local government facilities, children’s environments, and recreational facilities. The Access Board also provides

technical assistance to Government agencies, public and private organizations, individuals, and businesses on the removal of accessibility barriers.

The Committee’s recommendation provides adequate funding to

support 32.8 FTE, 2 FTE more than the fiscal year 2000 staffing

level, consistent with the Board’s budget request.

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2001 ............................................................................. $62,942,000

Budget estimate, 2002 ........................................................................... 64,480,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 70,000,000

The Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 established the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] as an independent Federal agency to promote transportation safety by conducting independent accident investigations. In addition, the act authorizes the

Board to make safety recommendations, conduct safety studies, and

oversee safety activities of other Government agencies involved in

transportation. The Board also reviews appeals of adverse actions
159

by the Department of Transportation with respect to airmen and

seamen certificates and licenses.

The Board has no regulatory authority over the transportation

industry. Thus, its effectiveness depends on its reputation for impartial and accurate accident reports, realistic and feasible safety

recommendations, and on public confidence in its commitment to

improving transportation safety.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The bill includes $70,000,000 for the National Transportation

Safety Board. The Committee recommendation is $7,058,000 above

the amount provided in fiscal year 2001 and $5,520,000 more than

the budget request. The Committee notes that the National Transportation Safety Board Amendments Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–

424) requires the Board, among other things, to provide the payment of true overtime for investigators and to implement the financial management control initiatives that were recommended by a

private sector audit firm last year. The Committee’s recommendation includes additional funding to annualize 25 new positions; provide true overtime payment costs; to provide 11 additional FTE’s;

and, to implement financial management programs.
(160)

TITLE III—GENERAL PROVISIONS

The Committee concurs with the general provisions that apply to

the Department of Transportation and related agencies as proposed

in the budget, with some changes, deletions, and additions. These

are noted below:

SEC. 302. Includes a provision which the administration had proposed be deleted that fiscal year 2002 pay raises for programs be

absorbed within the levels appropriated in this Act or previous appropriations Acts.

SEC. 304. Modifies a requested provision to prohibit the use of

funds for the salaries and expenses of more than 98 political and

presidential appointees to the Department of Transportation.

SEC. 306. Retains a provision regarding the availability of funds

appropriated in this Act beyond the fiscal year. The administration

proposed modifying this provision.

SEC. 307. Retains a provision that the administration had requested be deleted regarding consulting service through procurement contracting carried in previous appropriations Acts.

SEC. 308. Retains a provision prohibiting the release of personal

information, including a social security number, medical, or disability information, and photographs from a driver’s license or

motor vehicle record without express consent of the individual. The

administration proposed deleting this provision.

SEC. 309. This provision regarding the allocation of Federal-aid

Highway Program funds is continued with modifications to reflect

the passage of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

[TEA21]. The administration proposed modifying this provision.

SEC. 315. Includes a provision relating to modernizing O’Hare

International Airport, addressing traffic congestion along the

Northwest Corridor, and moving forward with a third Chicago-area

airport.

SEC. 319. Includes a provision rescinding certain funds from Public Law 105–178.

SEC. 323. Includes a provision which amends section 33(a) of

Public Law 105–178 to authorize the Washington County—

Wilsonville to Beaverton commuter rail project.

SEC. 324. Includes a provision which amends section 3030(b) of

Public Law 105–178 to authorize Detroit, Michigan Metropolitan

Airport rail project.

SEC. 325. Retains a provision which prohibits the use of funds for

specific types of employee training. The administration proposed to

delete this provision.

SEC. 326. Retains a provision that the administration had requested be deleted to prohibit the use of funds for activities to influence Congress or a State legislature on legislation or appropriations except through proper, official channels.
161

SEC. 327. Includes a provision requiring compliance with the Buy

American Act. The administration proposed deleting this provision.

SEC. 328. Includes a provision regarding staffing levels at the

Coast Guard Yard in Curtis Bay, Maryland.

SEC. 330. Modifies provision requested by the administration relating to funding for the Amtrak Reform Council.

SEC. 331. Includes a provision providing funding for surface

transportation projects.

SEC. 332. Includes a provision regarding Coast Guard Yard in

Curtis Bay, Maryland and other Coast Guard specialized facilities.

SEC. 333. Includes a provision from the fiscal year 2000 appropriations act which prohibits the use of funds in this Act unless the

Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than 3 full business days before any

discretionary grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by the Department or its modal administrations. The administration proposed deleting this provision.

SEC. 334. Modifies a provision regarding funding of motor carrier

safety programs.

SEC. 335. Includes a provision allowing the Federal Aviation Administration to accept funds from an airport sponsor for specific

staffing purposes.

SEC. 336. Includes a provision prohibiting use of funds to develop

new regional airport for southeast Louisiana until a comprehensive

plan is submitted to and approved by the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration and then submitted to and approved

by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

SEC. 337. Includes a provision relating to air traffic controller retirement.

SEC. 338. Modifies a provision from a previous appropriations Act

permitting Section 402 funds to be used to produce and place highway safety messages on paid media outlets and designating certain

Section 157 funds for paid media to support national law enforcement safety mobilizations.

SEC. 339. Includes a provision which expands the exemption from

Federal axle weight restrictions presently applicable only to public

transit buses to all over-the-road buses and directs that a study

and report concerning applicability of maximum axle weight limitations to over-the-road buses and public transit vehicles be submitted to the Congress.

SEC. 340. Prohibits funds to be used to adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide Federal Aviation Administration ‘‘without cost’’ buildings, maintenance, or space for

FAA services. However, the prohibition does not apply to negotiations concerning ‘‘below market’’ rates for those items.

SEC. 341. Includes a provision which requires the Coast Guard

to submit a quarterly report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees on major Coast Guard acquisition projects.

SEC. 342. Includes a provision which the administration had requested be deleted that reduces the funds provided for the Transportation Administrative Service Center.

SEC. 343. Includes a provision regarding safety standards for

Mexico-domiciled truck operating in the United States beyond
162

United States municipalities and commercial zones on the United

States-Mexico border.

SEC. 344. Includes a provision relating to the calculation of the

local share to match Federal funds provided for a transit project in

Clark County, Nevada.

SEC. 345. Includes a provision amending Public Law 105–178 relating to a project in Alaska.

SEC. 346. Includes a provision amending Public Law 105–178 relating to projects in Washington.

SEC. 347. Includes a provision regarding historic covered bridges.

SEC. 348. Includes a provision clarifying the use of funds allocated in previous appropriations Act for transit capital projects in

New Mexico.
(163)

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee ordered

reported, en bloc, S. 1171, an original fiscal year 2002 Energy and

Water Development appropriations bill, S. 1172, an original fiscal

year 2002 Legislative Branch appropriations bill, and S. 1178, an

original fiscal year 2002 Transportation and related agencies appropriations bill, each subject to amendment and each subject to its

budget allocations, by a recorded vote of 29–0, a quorum being

present. The vote was as follows:

Yeas Nays

Chairman Byrd

Mr. Inouye

Mr. Hollings

Mr. Leahy

Mr. Harkin

Ms. Mikulski

Mr. Reid

Mr. Kohl

Mrs. Murray

Mr. Dorgan

Mrs. Feinstein

Mr. Durbin

Mr. Johnson

Mrs. Landrieu

Mr. Reed

Mr. Stevens

Mr. Cochran

Mr. Specter

Mr. Domenici

Mr. Bond

Mr. McConnell

Mr. Burns

Mr. Shelby

Mr. Gregg

Mr. Bennett

Mr. Campbell

Mr. Craig

Mrs. Hutchison

Mr. DeWine

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports on

a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute or part

of any statute include ‘‘(a) the text of the statute or part thereof
164

which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a comparative print of

that part of the bill or joint resolution making the amendment and

of the statute or part thereof proposed to be amended, showing by

stricken-through type and italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical devices the omissions and insertions which

would be made by the bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form

recommended by the committee.’’ In compliance with this rule, the following changes in existing

law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as follows: existing

law to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets; new matter is

printed in italic; and existing law in which no change is proposed

is shown in roman.

TITLE 5—GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION AND

EMPLOYEES

* * * * * * *

PART III—EMPLOYEES

* * * * * * *

SUBPART G—INSURANCE AND ANNUITIES

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 83—RETIREMENT

* * * * * * *

SUBCHAPTER III—CIVIL SERVICE RETIREMENT

* * * * * * *

§ 8335. Mandatory separation

(a) An air traffic controller shall be separated from the service

on the last day of the month in which he becomes 56 years of age

if the controller qualifies for an immediate annuity at that time. If

not eligible for an immediate annuity upon reaching age 56, the

controller may work until the last day of the month in which the

controller becomes eligible for a retirement annuity unless the Secretary determines that such action would compromise safety. The

Secretary, under such regulations as he may prescribe, may exempt

a controller having exceptional skills and experience as a controller

from the automatic separation provisions of this subsection until

that controller becomes 61 years of age. The Secretary shall notify

the controller in writing of the date of separation at least 60 days

before that date. Action to separate the controller is not effective,

without the consent of the controller, until the last day of the

month in which the 60-day notice expires.

* * * * * * *

TITLE 14—COAST GUARD

* * * * * * *
165

PART I—REGULAR COAST GUARD

* * * * * * *

CHAPTER 17—ADMINISTRATION

* * * * * * *

§ 648. Accounting for industrial work

(a) The Secretary may prescribe regulations governing accounting for industrial work, including charges for overhead for civilian

labor and for maintenance of industrial plant and equipment, performed at the Coast Guard Yard and other Coast Guard specialized

facilities øor such similar Coast Guard industrial establishments¿

as he may designate. Any orders placed for such industrial work

shall be covered by a transfer or advance of funds to cover the estimated cost thereof, and shall be credited to such accounts as may

be necessary and established by the Secretary to carry out the provisions of this section. Accounts so established shall be available for

materials, supplies, or equipment, and civilian labor, including

overhead and maintenance, required in performing the work ordered. Upon completion of an order an adjustment will be made to

make the amount transferred or advanced equal to the actual cost

as computed in accordance with the accounting regulations prescribed by the Secretary.

(b) For providing support to the Department of Defense, the

Coast Guard Yard and other Coast Guard specialized facilities designated by the Commandant shall qualify as components of the Department of Defense for competition and workload assignment purposes. In addition, for purposes of entering into joint public-private

partnerships and other cooperative arrangements for the performance of work, the Coast Guard Yard and other Coast Guard specialized facilities may enter into agreements or other arrangements, receive and retain funds from and pay funds to such public and private entities, and may accept contributions of funds, materials, services, and the use of facilities from such entities. Amounts received

under this subsection may be credited to appropriate Coast Guard

accounts for fiscal year 2002 and for each fiscal year thereafter.

* * * * * * *

INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY

ACT OF 1991

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1023. GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RESTRICTION.

* * * * * * *

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(h) OVER-THE-ROAD BUSES AND PUBLIC TRANSIT VEHICLES.—

(1) TEMPORARY EXEMPTION.—The second sentence of section 127 of title 23, United States Code, relating to axle weight

limitations for vehicles using the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways, shall not apply, for
166

the period beginning on October 6, 1992, and ending on October 1, 2003, øto any vehicle which¿ to— (A) any over-the-road bus; or

(B) any vehicle that

is regularly and exclusively used as an intrastate public agency

transit passenger bus.

ø(2) STUDY.—The Secretary shall conduct a study on the

maximum axle weight limitations on the Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways established

under section 127 of title 23, United States Code, or under

State laws, as they apply to public transit vehicles. The study

shall determine whether or not public transit vehicles should

be exempted from the requirements of section 127 or State

laws or if such laws should be modified with regard to public

transit vehicles. In making such determination, the Secretary

shall consider current transit vehicle design standards, the implications of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Clean Air

Act requirements on such design standards, and the potential

impact of revised design standards on transit ridership capacity, operating and replacement costs, air quality concerns, and

highway wear and tear.

ø(3) REPORT.—Not later than 18 months after the date of

enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Congress a report on the result of the study conducted under paragraph (2), together with recommendations.¿

(2) STUDY AND REPORT CONCERNING APPLICABILITY OF MAX- IMUM AXLE WEIGHT LIMITATIONS TO OVER-THE-ROAD BUSES AND

PUBLIC TRANSIT VEHICLES.— (A) STUDY AND REPORT.—Not later than July 31, 2002,

the Secretary shall conduct a study of, and submit to Congress a report on, the maximum axle weight limitations applicable to vehicles using the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways established under section 127 of title 23, United States Code, or

under State law, as the limitations apply to over-the-road

buses and public transit vehicles.

(B) DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY OF VEHICLE

WEIGHT LIMITATIONS.— (i) IN GENERAL.—The report shall include—

(I) a determination concerning how the requirements of section 127 of that title should be

applied to over-the-road buses and public transit

vehicles; and

(II) short-term and long-term recommendations concerning the applicability of those requirements.

(ii) CONSIDERATIONS.—In making the determination described in clause (i)(I), the Secretary shall

consider—

(I) vehicle design standards;

(II) statutory and regulatory requirements,

including—

(aa) the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et

seq.);
167

(bb) the Americans with Disabilities Act of

1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.); and

(cc) motor vehicle safety standards prescribed under chapter 301 of title 49, United

States Code; and

(III)(aa) the availability of lightweight materials suitable for use in the manufacture of overthe-road buses;

(bb) the cost of those lightweight materials relative to the cost of heavier materials in use as of

the date of the determination; and

(cc) any safety or design considerations relating to the use of those materials.

(C) ANALYSIS OF MEANS OF ENCOURAGING DEVELOP- MENT AND MANUFACTURE OF LIGHTWEIGHT BUSES.—The report shall include an analysis of, and recommendations

concerning, means to be considered to encourage the development and manufacture of lightweight buses, including an

analysis of—

(i) potential procurement incentives for public transit authorities to encourage the purchase of lightweight

public transit vehicles using grants from the Federal

Transit Administration; and

(ii) potential tax incentives for manufacturers and

private operators to encourage the purchase of lightweight over-the-road buses.

(D) ANALYSIS OF CONSIDERATION IN RULEMAKINGS OF

ADDITIONAL VEHICLE WEIGHT.—The report shall include an

analysis of, and recommendations concerning, whether

Congress should require that each rulemaking by an agency of the Federal Government that affects the design or

manufacture of motor vehicles consider— (i) the weight that would be added to the vehicle

by implementation of the proposed rule;

(ii) the effect that the added weight would have on

pavement wear; and

(iii) the resulting cost to the Federal Government

and State and local governments.

(E) COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS.—The report shall include

an analysis relating to the axle weight of over-the-road

buses that compares—

(i) the costs of the pavement wear caused by overthe-road buses; with

(ii) the benefits of the over-the-road bus industry to

the environment, the economy, and the transportation

system of the United States.

(3) DEFINITIONS.—In this subsection:

(A) OVER-THE-ROAD BUS.—The term ‘‘over-the-road

bus’’ has the meaning given the term in section 301 of the

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12181).

(B) PUBLIC TRANSIT VEHICLE.—The term ‘‘public transit vehicle’’ means a vehicle described in paragraph (1)(B).

* * * * * * *
168

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST

CENTURY, PUBLIC LAW 105–178

SEC. 1602. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

* * * * * * *

No. State Project description (Dollars in

millions)

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¿ Second

Douglas Island Crossing ........................... 2.475

*******

1793. Washington ........... øSouthworth Seattle Ferry¿ Passenger only

ferry to serve Kitsap County-Seattle ......... 0.962

*******

* * * * * * *

SEC. 3030. PROJECTS FOR NEW FIXED GUIDEWAY SYSTEMS AND EXTENSIONS TO EXISTING SYSTEMS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

Washington County—Wilsonville to Beaverton commuter

rail.

(b) * * *

Detroit, Michigan Metropolitan Airport rail project.

* * * * * * *

OMNIBUS CONSOLIDATED AND EMERGENCY SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999, PUBLIC LAW

105–277

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

* * * * * * *

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

* * * * * * *

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

* * * * * * *

No. State Project Conference

143 New Mexico ............... øNorthern New Mexico park and ride facilities¿

Northern New Mexico park and ride facilities

and State of New Mexico, Buses and Bus-Related

Facilities.

2,000,000

* * * * * * *
169

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2000, PUBLIC LAW

106–69

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

* * * * * * *

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

* * * * * * *

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

* * * * * * *

No. State Project Conference

167 New Mexico ............... øNorthern New Mexico Transit Express/Park and

Ride buses¿ Northern New Mexico park and ride

facilities and State of New Mexico, Buses and

Bus-Related Facilities ............................................ 2,750,000

* * * * * * *
170

BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL

PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC.

308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93–344, AS AMENDED

[In millions of dollars]

Budget authority Outlays

Committee

allocation Amount of bill Committeeallocation Amount of bill

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations to its subcommittees of

amounts in the First Concurrent Resolution

2002: Subcommittee on Transportation and

Related Agencies:

General purpose, defense ............................ 695 695 NA NA

General purpose non-defense ...................... 14,884 14.880 NA NA

General purpose, total ................................. 15,579 15.575 19,104 1 19,101

Highway category ......................................... NA NA 28,489 28,489

Mass transit ................................................ NA NA 5,275 5,275

Mandatory .................................................... ¥915 .................... 801 801

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:

2002 ............................................................. .................... .................... .................... 2 20,981

2003 ............................................................. .................... .................... .................... 19,371

2004 ............................................................. .................... .................... .................... 8,467

2005 ............................................................. .................... .................... .................... 3,859

2006 and future year .................................. .................... .................... .................... 4,076

Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2002 in bill ..................................... NA 1.506 NA 1,080

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

2 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2001 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recomm

compared with (∂ or 

2001

appropriation Budg

TITLE I

—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Salaries and expenses .................................................................................................... 63,245 69,500 67,349

∂4,104

Immediate Office of the Secretary ......................................................................... (1,827) (1,989) (1,929) (∂102) Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary ............................................................. (587) (638) (619) (

∂32) 

Office of the General Counsel ................................................................................ (9,972) (13,355) (14,075) (

∂4,103) 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy ........................................................... (3,011) (3,153) (3,058) (

∂47) 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs .............. (7,289) (7,650) (7,421) (

∂132) 

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

∂366) .........

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs .................................. (2,150) (2,282) (2,214) (

∂64) 

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ............................................ (19,020) (20,262) (18,236) (

¥784) 

Office of Public Affairs .......................................................................................... (1,674) (1,776) (1,723) (

∂49) 

Executive Secretariat .............................................................................................. (1,181) (1,241) (1,204) (

∂23) 

Board of Contract Appeals ..................................................................................... (496) (523) (507) (

∂11) 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization ..................................... (1,192) (1,251) (1,213) (

∂21) 

Office of Intelligence and Security ........................................................................ (1,262) (1,321) (1,281) (

∂19) 

Office of the Chief Information Officer .................................................................. (6,222) (6,331) (6,141) (

¥81) 

Subtotal .............................................................................................................. (63,245) (69,500) (67,349) (

∂4,104) 

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥139 ............................ ............................

∂139 .........

Office of Civil Rights ...................................................................................................... 8,140 8,500 8,500

∂360 .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥18 ............................ ............................

∂18 .........

Transportation planning, research, and development .................................................... 11,000 5,193 15,592

∂4,592

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥24 ............................ ............................

∂24 .........
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2001 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recomm

compared with (∂ or 

2001

appropriation Budg

Transportation Administrative Service Center ................................................................ (126,887) (125,323) (125,323) (

¥1,564) .........

Minority business resource center program .................................................................... 1,900 900 900

¥1,000 .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥4 ............................ ............................

∂4 .........

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) .......................................................................... (13,775) (18,367) (18,367) (

∂4,592) .........

Minority business outreach ............................................................................................. 3,000 3,000 3,000 ............................ .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥7 ............................ ............................

∂7 .........

Payments to air carriers (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) ............................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ .........

Total, Office of the Secretary ............................................................................ 87,285 87,093 95,341

∂8,056

ATB rescissions .........................................................................................

¥192 ............................ ............................

∂192 .........

Net total ............................................................................................... 87,093 87,093 95,341

∂8,248

Coast Guard

Operating expenses ......................................................................................................... 2,851,000 3,042,588 2,732,588

¥118,412

Defense function .................................................................................................... 341,000 340,250 695,000

∂354,000

Subtotal .............................................................................................................. 3,192,000 3,382,838 3,427,588

∂235,588

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥6,967 ............................ ............................

∂6,967 .........

Acquisition, construction, and improvements:

Vessels .................................................................................................................... 156,450 79,390 79,640

¥76,810

Aircraft .................................................................................................................... 37,650 500 10,500

¥27,150

Other equipment ..................................................................................................... 60,113 95,471 99,921

∂39,808

Shore facilities and aids to navigation facilities .................................................. 63,336 79,262 88,862

∂25,526
Personnel and related support ............................................................................... 55,151 66,700 65,200

∂10,049

Integrated Deepwater Systems ............................................................................... 42,300 338,000 325,200

∂282,900

Rescission ............................................................................................................... ............................ ............................

¥8,700

¥8,700

Subtotal, A C & I (excl rescissions) .................................................................. 415,000 659,323 669,323

∂254,323

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥869 ............................ ............................

∂869 .........

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

∂227 .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥37 ............................ ............................

∂37 .........

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

¥34 .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥35 ............................ ............................

∂35 .........

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

∂98,346 .........

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

∂2,819 .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥176 ............................ ............................

∂176 .........

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

∂402 .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥40 ............................ ............................

∂40 .........

Trust fund share of expenses (ATB rescission) ..............................................................

¥108 ............................ ............................

∂108 .........

Total, Coast Guard ............................................................................................. 4,518,895 5,055,816 5,110,566

∂591,671

Rescissions ...............................................................................................

¥8,232 ............................

¥8,700

¥468

Net total ............................................................................................... 4,510,663 5,055,816 5,101,866

∂591,203

Federal Aviation Administration

Operations ....................................................................................................................... 6,544,235 6,886,000 6,916,000

∂371,765

Air traffic services .................................................................................................. (5,200,274) (5,447,421) (5,447,421) (

∂247,147) .........

Aviation regulation and certification ..................................................................... (694,979) (744,744) (774,744) (

∂79,765) 

Civil aviation security ............................................................................................ (139,301) (150,154) (150,154) (

∂10,853) .........

Research and acquisition ...................................................................................... (189,988) (196,674) (196,674) (

∂6,686) .........

Commercial space transportation .......................................................................... (12,000) (14,706) (14,706) (

∂2,706) .........

Financial services ................................................................................................... (48,444) (50,684) (50,684) (

∂2,240) .........

Human resources .................................................................................................... (54,864) (74,516) (74,516) (

∂19,652) .........

Regional coordination ............................................................................................. (99,347) (90,893) (90,893) (

¥8,454) .........

Staff offices ............................................................................................................ (105,038) (116,208) (116,208) (

∂11,170) .........

Undistributed .......................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ .........
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2001 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recomm

compared with (∂ or 

2001

appropriation Budg

Subtotal .............................................................................................................. (6,544,235) (6,886,000) (6,916,000) (

∂371,765) 

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥14,397 ............................ ............................

∂14,397 .........

Facilities and equipment (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) ............................................ 2,656,765 2,914,000 2,914,000

∂257,235 .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥5,845 ............................ ............................

∂5,845 .........

Research, engineering, and development (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) .................. 187,000 187,781 195,808

∂8,808

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥411 ............................ ............................

∂411 .........

Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund):

(Liquidation of contract authorization) .................................................................. (3,200,000) (1,800,000) (1,800,000) (

¥1,400,000) .........

(Limitation on obligations) ..................................................................................... (3,200,000) (3,300,000) (3,300,000) (

∂100,000) .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission .................................................. (

¥7,040) ............................ ............................ (

∂7,040) .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ..................................................

¥4 ............................ ............................

∂4 .........

Rescission of contract authorization .....................................................................

¥579,000

¥331,000

¥301,720

∂277,280

Net subtotal ....................................................................................................... (2,613,956) (2,969,000) (2,998,280) (

∂384,324) 

Small Community air service development pilot program ............................................. ............................ ............................ 20,000

∂20,000

Total, Federal Aviation Administration .............................................................. 9,388,000 9,987,781 10,045,808 ∂657,808

(Limitations on obligations) ..................................................................... (3,200,000) (3,300,000) (3,300,000) (

∂100,000) .........

Total budgetary resources .................................................................... (12,588,000) (13,287,781) (13,345,808) (

∂757,808) 

ATB rescissions ......................................................................................... (

¥7,040) ............................ ............................ (

∂7,040) .........

ATB rescissions .........................................................................................

¥20,657 ............................ ............................

∂20,657 .........
Rescission ................................................................................................. ¥579,000 ¥331,000 ¥301,720 ∂277,280 

Net total ............................................................................................... (11,981,303) (12,956,781) (13,044,088) (∂1,062,785) 

Federal Highway Administration

Limitation on administrative expenses ........................................................................... (295,119) (317,693) (316,521) (∂21,402) Limitation on transportation research ............................................................................ ............................ ............................ (445,000) (∂445,000) (Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund):

(Limitation on obligations) ..................................................................................... (26,603,806) (27,042,994) (27,400,000) (∂796,194) (

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission .................................................. (¥58,528) ............................ ............................ (∂58,528) .........

Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) ............................................................ (3,058,000) (4,341,700) (4,326,700) (∂1,268,700) 

Innovative transportation solutions program (RABA) ................................... ............................ (45,000) (45,000) (∂45,000) .........Alternative transportation grant prog (RABA) .............................................. ............................ (100,000) (100,000) (∂100,000) .........Border infrastructure construction prog (RABA) ........................................... ............................ (56,300) (71,300) (∂71,300) 

Subtotal, RABA .......................................................................................... (3,058,000) (4,543,000) (4,543,000) (∂1,485,000) .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission .................................................. (¥6,728) ............................ ............................ (∂6,728) .........

Authorized transfer to FMCSA ................................................................................ ............................ (¥22,837) (¥23,897) (¥23,897) 

Subtotal, limitation on obligations .................................................................... (29,661,806) (31,563,157) (31,919,103) (∂2,257,297) (

(Exempt obligations) .............................................................................................. (1,069,000) (955,000) (955,000) (¥114,000) .........(Liquidation of contract authorization) .................................................................. (28,000,000) (30,000,000) (30,000,000) (∂2,000,000) .........

Emergency Relief Program (Highway Trust Fund) (contingent emergency appropriation) ............................................................................................................................. 720,000 ............................ ............................ ¥720,000 .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ........................................................... ¥1,584 ............................ ............................ ∂1,584 .........

Appalachian development highway system .................................................................... 279,963 ............................ 350,000 ∂70,037 

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ........................................................... ¥649 ............................ ............................ ∂649 .........

State infrastructure banks (rescission) .......................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥5,750 ¥5,750 Value pricing project (rescission) ................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ¥9,231 ¥9,231 

Total, Federal Highway Administration .............................................................. 279,963 ............................ 350,000 ∂70,037 

Contingent emergency .............................................................................. 720,000 ............................ ............................ ¥720,000 .........(Limitations on obligations) ..................................................................... (29,661,806) (31,563,157) (31,919,103) (∂2,257,297) (
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2001 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recomm

compared with (∂ or 

2001

appropriation Budg

(Exempt obligations) ................................................................................. (1,069,000) (955,000) (955,000) (

¥114,000) .........

Total budgetary resources .................................................................... (31,730,769) (32,518,157) (33,224,103) (

∂1,493,334) (

ATB rescissions ......................................................................................... (

¥65,256) ............................ ............................ (

∂65,256) .........

ATB rescissions .........................................................................................

¥2,233 ............................

¥9,231

¥6,998

Rescission ................................................................................................. ............................ ............................

¥5,750

¥5,750

Net total ............................................................................................... (31,663,280) (32,518,157) (33,209,122) (

∂1,545,842) (

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Motor carrier safety (limitation on obligations administrative expenses) ..................... (92,194) (139,007) (105,000) (

∂12,806) 

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ........................................................... (

¥202) ............................ ............................ (

∂202) .........

Rescission ............................................................................................................... ............................ ............................

¥6,665

¥6,665

National motor carrier safety program (Highway Trust Fund):

(Liquidation of contract authorization) .................................................................. (177,000) (204,837) (204,837) (

∂27,837) .........

(Limitation on obligations) ..................................................................................... (177,000) (182,000) (183,059) (

∂6,059) 

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission .................................................. (

¥389) ............................ ............................ (

∂389) .........

Rescission of contract authority ................................................................... ............................ ............................

¥2,333

¥2,333

Authorized transfer from FHWA:

Border-State grants ....................................................................................... ............................ (18,000) (18,000) (

∂18,000) .........

State commercial driver’s license ................................................................. ............................ (4,837) (4,837) (

∂4,837) .........

Motor carrier safety assistance grants ......................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ .........
Subtotal, RABA .......................................................................................... ............................ (22,837) (22,837) (

∂22,837) .........

Subtotal, limitation on obligations ........................................................... (177,000) (204,837) (205,896) (

∂28,896) 

Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin ............................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ .........

(Limitations on obligations) ............................................................ (269,194) (343,844) (310,896) (

∂41,702) 

Total budgetary resources ........................................................... (269,194) (343,844) (310,896) (

∂41,702) 

ATB rescissions ......................................................................................... (

¥591) ............................ ............................ (

∂591) .........

Net total ............................................................................................... (268,603) (343,844) (310,896) (

∂42,293) 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Operations and research ................................................................................................. 116,876 122,000 132,000

∂15,124

Operations and research (Highway trust fund):

(Liquidation of contract authorization) .................................................................. (72,000) (72,000) (72,000) ............................ .........(Limitation on obligations) ..................................................................................... (72,000) (72,000) (72,000) ............................ .........Rescission of contract authority ............................................................................ ............................ ............................

¥1,516

¥1,516

National Driver Register (Highway trust fund) ............................................................... 2,000 2,000 2,000 ............................ .........

Subtotal, Operations and research .................................................................... (190,876) (196,000) (204,484) (

∂13,608) 

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥261 ............................ ............................

∂261 .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ........................................................... (

¥158) ............................ ............................ (

∂158) .........

Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund):

(Liquidation of contract authorization) .................................................................. (213,000) (223,000) (223,000) (

∂10,000) .........

(Limitation on obligations):

Highway safety programs (Sec. 402) ............................................................ (155,000) (160,000) (160,000) (

∂5,000) .........

Occupant protection incentive grants (Sec. 405) ......................................... (13,000) (15,000) (15,000) (

∂2,000) .........

Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants (Sec. 410) ..................... (36,000) (38,000) (38,000) (

∂2,000) .........

State highway safety data grants (Sec. 411) .............................................. (9,000) (10,000) (10,000) (

∂1,000) .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ......................................... (

¥469) ............................ ............................ (

∂469) .........

Rescission of contract authority .......................................................... ............................ ............................

¥469

¥469

Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin ................................ 118,876 124,000 134,000

∂15,124
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2001 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recomm

compared with (∂ or 

2001

appropriation Budg

(Limitations on obligations) ................................................... (285,000) (295,000) (295,000) (

∂10,000) .........

Total budgetary resources .................................................. (403,876) (419,000) (429,000) (

∂25,124) 

ATB rescissions ......................................................................................... (

¥627) ............................ ............................ (

∂627) .........

ATB rescissions .........................................................................................

¥261 ............................ ............................

∂261 .........

Net total ............................................................................................... (402,988) (419,000) (429,000) (

∂26,012) 

Federal Railroad Administration

Safety and operations ..................................................................................................... 101,717 111,357 111,357

∂9,640 .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥224 ............................ ............................

∂224 .........

Offsetting collections ............................................................................................. ............................

¥41,000 ............................ ............................

Railroad research and development ............................................................................... 25,325 28,325 30,325

∂5,000

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥56 ............................ ............................

∂56 .........

Offsetting collections ............................................................................................. ............................

¥14,000 ............................ ............................

Rhode Island Rail Development ...................................................................................... 17,000 ............................ ............................

¥17,000 .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥37 ............................ ............................

∂37 .........

Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment project (advance appropriations, fiscal year

2001, fiscal year 2002, fiscal year 2003) 1 ............................................................... 20,000 20,000 20,000 ............................ .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥44 ............................ ............................

∂44 .........

Rescission ............................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ .........

Next generation high-speed rail ..................................................................................... 25,100 25,100 40,000

∂14,900

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥55 ............................ ............................

∂55 .........

Alaska Railroad rehabilitation ........................................................................................ 20,000 ............................ 20,000 ............................

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥44 ............................ ............................

∂44 .........
West Virginia Rail development ...................................................................................... 15,000 ............................ ............................

¥15,000 .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥33 ............................ ............................

∂33 .........

National Rail Development and Rehabilitation program ................................................ ............................ ............................ 12,000

∂12,000

Capital grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ................................... 521,476 521,476 521,476 ............................ .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥1,147 ............................ ............................

∂1,147 .........

Total, Federal Railroad Administration .............................................................. 743,978 651,258 755,158

∂11,180

ATB rescissions .........................................................................................

¥1,640 ............................ ............................

∂1,640 .........

Net total ............................................................................................... 742,338 651,258 755,158

∂12,820

Federal Transit Administration

Administrative expenses .................................................................................................. 12,800 13,400 13,400

∂600 .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥28 ............................ ............................

∂28 .........

Administrative expenses (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (limitation on

obligations) ................................................................................................................. (51,200) (53,600) (53,600) (

∂2,400) .........

Subtotal, Administrative expenses .................................................................... (63,972) (67,000) (67,000) (

∂3,028) .........

Formula grants ................................................................................................................ 669,000 718,400 718,400

∂49,400 .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥1,360 ............................ ............................

∂1,360 .........

Formula grants (Highway Trust Fund)(limitation on obligations) .................................. (2,676,000) (2,873,600) (2,873,600) (

∂197,600) .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ........................................................... (

¥5,887) ............................ ............................ (

∂5,887) .........

Subtotal, Formula grants ................................................................................... (3,343,640) (3,592,000) (3,592,000) (

∂248,360) .........

University transportation research .................................................................................. 1,200 1,200 1,200 ............................ .........University transportation research (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Acct) (limitation on obligations) .................................................................................................... (4,800) (4,800) (4,800) ............................ .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ........................................................... (

¥3) ............................ ............................ (

∂3) .........

Subtotal, University transportation research ..................................................... (6,000) (6,000) (6,000) ............................ .........

Transit planning and research ....................................................................................... 22,200 23,000 23,000

∂800 .........

Transit planning and research (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (limitation on obligations) .................................................................................................... (87,800) (93,000) (93,000) (

∂5,200) .........
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2001 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recomm

compared with (∂ or 

2001

appropriation Budg

Subtotal, Transit planning and research .......................................................... (110,000) (116,000) (116,000) (

∂6,000) .........

Rural transportation assistance ............................................................................ (5,250) (5,250) (5,250) ............................ .........National Transit Institute ....................................................................................... (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) ............................ .........Transit cooperative research .................................................................................. (8,250) (8,250) (8,250) ............................ .........Metropolitan planning ............................................................................................ (52,114) (55,422) (55,422) (

∂3,308) .........

State planning ........................................................................................................ (10,886) (11,578) (11,578) (

∂692) .........

National planning and research ............................................................................ (29,500) (31,500) (31,500) (

∂2,000) .........

Subtotal .............................................................................................................. (110,000) (116,000) (116,000) (

∂6,000) .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥49 ............................ ............................

∂49 .........

Trust fund share of expenses (Highway Trust Fund) (liquidation of contract authorization) ........................................................................................................................ (5,016,600) (5,397,800) (5,397,800) (

∂381,200) .........

Capital investment grants .............................................................................................. 529,200 568,200 568,200

∂39,000 .........

Capital investment grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (limitation

on obligations) ............................................................................................................ (2,116,800) (2,272,800) (2,272,800) (

∂156,000) .........

Subtotal, Capital investment grants ................................................................. (2,646,000) (2,841,000) (2,841,000) (

∂195,000) .........

Fixed guideway modernization ............................................................................... (1,058,400) (1,136,400) (1,136,400) (

∂78,000) .........

Buses and bus-related facilities ........................................................................... (529,200) (568,200) (568,200) (

∂39,000) .........

New starts .............................................................................................................. (1,058,400) (1,136,400) (1,136,400) (

∂78,000) .........

New starts (general funds) .................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 100,000

∂100,000

Subtotal .............................................................................................................. (2,646,000) (2,841,000) (2,841,000) (

∂195,000) .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥1,274 ............................ ............................

∂1,274 .........
Discretionary grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (liquidation of contract authorization) ..................................................................................................... (350,000) ............................ ............................ (¥350,000) .........Job access and reverse commute grants ....................................................................... 20,000 25,000 25,000 ∂5,000 .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ........................................................... ¥44 ............................ ............................ ∂44 .........(Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (limitation on obligations) ............ (80,000) (100,000) (100,000) (∂20,000) .........

Trust fund share of expenses (limitation on obligations) (ATB rescission) .................. (¥8,492) ............................ ............................ (∂8,492) .........

Subtotal, Job access and reverse commute grants .......................................... (99,956) (125,000) (125,000) (∂25,044) .........Total, Federal Transit Administration ................................................................ 1,254,400 1,349,200 1,449,200 ∂194,800 

(Limitations on obligations) ..................................................................... (5,016,600) (5,397,800) (5,397,800) (∂381,200) .........

Total budgetary resources .................................................................... (6,271,000) (6,747,000) (6,847,000) (∂576,000) (

ATB rescissions ......................................................................................... (¥14,382) ............................ ............................ (∂14,382) .........ATB rescissions ......................................................................................... ¥2,755 ............................ ............................ ∂2,755 .........

Net total ............................................................................................... (6,253,863) (6,747,000) (6,847,000) (∂593,137) (

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund) ................................... 13,004 13,345 13,345 ∂341 .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ........................................................... ¥29 ............................ ............................ ∂29 .........

Net total ............................................................................................................. 12,975 13,345 13,345 ∂370 .........

Research and Special Programs Administration

Research and special programs:

Hazardous materials safety ................................................................................... 18,750 21,217 21,217 ∂2,467 .........Emergency transportation ...................................................................................... 1,831 1,897 1,897 ∂66 .........Research and technology ....................................................................................... 4,816 4,760 4,760 ¥56 .........Program and administrative support ..................................................................... 10,976 14,059 14,059 ∂3,083 .........Adjustment ............................................................................................................. ............................ 60 60 ∂60 .........

Subtotal, research and special programs ......................................................... 36,373 41,993 41,993 ∂5,620 .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ........................................................... ¥79 ............................ ............................ ∂79 .........
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2001 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recomm

compared with (∂ or 

2001

appropriation Budg

Offsetting collections ............................................................................................. ............................

¥12,000 ............................ ............................

Pipeline safety:

Pipeline Safety Fund .............................................................................................. 36,556 46,286 47,278

∂10,722

Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund .................................................................................. 7,488 7,472 11,472 ∂3,984Pipeline safety reserve ........................................................................................... (3,000) ............................ ............................ (

¥3,000) .........

Subtotal, Pipeline safety program (incl reserve) .............................................. (47,044) (53,758) (58,750) (

∂11,706) 

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥19 ............................ ............................

∂19 .........

Emergency preparedness grants:

Emergency preparedness fund ............................................................................... 200 200 200 ............................ .........Limitation on emergency preparedness fund ........................................................ (14,300) (14,300) (14,300) ............................ .........

Total, Research and Special Programs Admin .................................................. 80,617 83,951 100,943

∂20,326

ATB rescissions .........................................................................................

¥98 ............................ ............................

∂98 .........

Net total ............................................................................................... 80,519 83,951 100,943

∂20,424

Office of Inspector General

Salaries and expenses .................................................................................................... 48,450 50,614 50,614

∂2,164 .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥106 ............................ ............................

∂106 .........

(By transfer from FTA) ........................................................................................... (1,000) (2,000) (2,000) (

∂1,000) .........

Net total ............................................................................................................. (49,344) (52,614) (52,614) (

∂3,270) .........
Surface Transportation Board

Salaries and expenses .................................................................................................... 17,954 18,457 18,457 ∂503 .........

Offsetting collections ............................................................................................. ¥900 ¥950 ¥950 ¥50 .........

Net total ............................................................................................................. 17,054 17,507 17,507 ∂453 .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ........................................................... ¥37 ............................ ............................ ∂37 .........

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Office of airline information (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) ....................................... ............................ 3,760 3,760 ∂3,760 .........

General Provisions

Amtrak Reform Council (Sec. 326) ................................................................................. 750 785 420 ¥330 

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ........................................................... ¥2 ............................ ............................ ∂2 .........

Muscle Shoals, Tuscumbia, and Sheffield (Sec. 375) .................................................... 5,000 ............................ ............................ ¥5,000 .........Valley trains and tours (Sec. 376) ................................................................................. 1,000 ............................ ............................ ¥1,000 .........Miscellaneous highways (Sec. 378) ................................................................................ 1,145,000 ............................ ............................ ¥1,145,000 .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ........................................................... ¥2,519 ............................ ............................ ∂2,519 .........

Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge (Sec. 379) ................................................................. 600,000 ............................ ............................ ¥600,000 .........Surface Transportation projects ...................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 20,000 ∂20,000 Miscellaneous appropriations (Public Law 106–554):

Huntsville International Airport (sec. 1104) .......................................................... 2,500 ............................ ............................ ¥2,500 .........Southeast Light Rail Extension Project (sec. 1105) .............................................. 1,000 ............................ ............................ ¥1,000 .........Newark-Elizabeth rail link project (sec. 1107) ...................................................... 3,000 ............................ ............................ ¥3,000 .........Commercial remote sensing products and spatial information technologies

(sec. 1109) ......................................................................................................... 4,000 ............................ ............................ ¥4,000 .........

Rural farm-to-market roads (sec. 1121) ............................................................... 2,400 ............................ ............................ ¥2,400 .........Buses and bus facilities, A&M University (sec. 1123) ......................................... 500 ............................ ............................ ¥500 .........Highway Trust Fund, various projects (sec. 1128) ................................................ 8,700 ............................ ............................ ¥8,700 .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission .................................................................... ¥1,333 ............................ ............................ ∂1,333 .........West Douglas Road Extension ......................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ .........

Total, General provisions ................................................................................... 1,769,996 785 20,420 ¥1,749,576 Net total, title I, Department of Transportation ................................................ 18,426,918 17,094,110 17,810,278 ¥616,640 

Appropriations .................................................................................. (18,326,012) (17,425,110) (18,146,662) (¥179,350) (
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN 

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002

—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2001 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recomm

compared with (∂ or 

2001

appropriation Budg

Rescissions ...................................................................................... (

¥619,094) (

¥331,000) (

¥332,066) (

∂287,028) 

Rescission of contract authority ...................................................... ............................ ............................ (

¥4,318) (

¥4,318) 

Contingent emergency ..................................................................... (720,000) ............................ ............................ (

¥720,000) .........

(By transfer) .............................................................................................. (1,000) (2,000) (2,000) (

∂1,000) .........

(Limitations on obligations) ..................................................................... (38,432,600) (40,899,801) (41,222,799) (

∂2,790,199) (

(Rescissions of limitations on obligations) .............................................. (

¥87,896) ............................ ............................ (

∂87,896) .........

(Exempt obligations) ................................................................................. (1,069,000) (955,000) (955,000) (

¥114,000) .........

Net total budgetary resources .............................................................. (57,840,622) (58,948,911) (59,988,077) (∂2,147,455) (

∂

TITLE II

—RELATED AGENCIES

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board

Salaries and expenses .................................................................................................... 4,795 5,015 5,015

∂220 .........

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥11 ............................ ............................

∂11 .........

Net total ............................................................................................................. 4,784 5,015 5,015

∂231 .........

National Transportation Safety Board

Salaries and expenses .................................................................................................... 62,942 64,480 70,000

∂7,058

Across the board (0.22 percent) rescission ...........................................................

¥139 ............................ ............................

∂139 .........
Net total ............................................................................................................. 62,803 64,480 70,000

∂7,197

Total, title II, Related Agencies ......................................................................... 67,587 69,495 75,015

∂7,428

Grand total ......................................................................................................... 18,494,505 17,163,605 17,885,293

¥609,212

Appropriations .................................................................................. (18,393,749) (17,494,605) (18,221,677) (

¥172,072) (

Rescissions ...................................................................................... (

¥619,244) (

¥331,000) (

¥332,066) (

∂287,178) 

Rescission of contract authority ...................................................... ............................ ............................ (

¥4,318) (

¥4,318) 

Contingent emergency ..................................................................... (720,000) ............................ ............................ (

¥720,000) .........

(By transfer) .............................................................................................. (1,000) (2,000) (2,000) (

∂1,000) .........

(Limitation on obligations) ....................................................................... (38,432,600) (40,899,801) (41,222,799) (

∂2,790,199) (

(Rescissions of limitations on obligations) .............................................. (

¥87,896) ............................ ............................ (

∂87,896) .........

(Exempt obligations) ................................................................................. (1,069,000) (955,000) (955,000) (

¥114,000) .........

Net total budgetary resources .............................................................. (57,908,209) (59,018,406) (60,063,092) (∂2,154,883) (

∂

1 Funding provided in Public Law 106–113.

Æ