81–066 ★(Star Print)

Calendar No. 522

107TH CONGRESS REPORT

2d Session " ! SENATE 107–224

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED

AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2003

JULY 26, 2002.—Ordered to be printed

Mrs. MURRAY, from the Committee on Appropriations,

submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 2808]

The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2808) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and

for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that

the bill do pass.

Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2003

Amount of bill as reported to Senate ...................... $22,251,162,000

Amount of budget estimates, 2003 .......................... 20,799,680,000

Fiscal year 2002 enacted .......................................... 18,900,670,000

(2)

C O N T E N T S

SUMMARY OF MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS

Page

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

Program, project, and activity ................................................................................ 4

Accrual funding of retirement costs and post-retirement health benefits .......... 4

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................. 6

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

Transportation planning, research, and development .......................................... 11

Transportation Administrative Service Center ..................................................... 12

Essential Air Service and Rural Airport Improvement Fund .............................. 13

Minority Business Resource Center Program ....................................................... 15

Minority business outreach ..................................................................................... 16

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Summary of fiscal year 2003 program ................................................................... 21

U.S. COAST GUARD

Operating expenses ................................................................................................. 26

Acquisition, construction, and improvements ....................................................... 34

Environmental compliance and restoration ........................................................... 37

Alteration of bridges ................................................................................................ 37

Retired pay ............................................................................................................... 38

Reserve training ....................................................................................................... 39

Research, development, test, and evaluation ........................................................ 39

Boat safety ................................................................................................................ 40

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Operations ................................................................................................................ 41

Facilities and equipment ......................................................................................... 44

Research, engineering, and development ............................................................... 55

Grants-in-aid for airports ........................................................................................ 57

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Limitation on administrative expenses .................................................................. 64

Federal-aid highways .............................................................................................. 65

Appalachian development highway system ........................................................... 74

Limitation on Transportation Research ................................................................. 75

Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System ............................................. 78

Bureau of Transportation Statistics ....................................................................... 79

Liquidation of Contract Authorization ................................................................... 79

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Motor carrier safety: Limitation on administrative expense ............................... 80

National motor carrier safety program .................................................................. 83

Border enforcement program .................................................................................. 84

Page

3

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

Operations and research ......................................................................................... 87

Highway traffic safety grants ................................................................................. 93

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

Safety and operations .............................................................................................. 96

Railroad research and development ....................................................................... 97

Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program .......................... 98

Next generation high-speed rail ............................................................................. 99

Alaska railroad rehabilitation ................................................................................ 100

Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) ..................... 100

Amtrak Reform Council ................................................................................... 106

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 ...................................................................................... 111

Job access and reverse commute grants ................................................................ 143

ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Operations and maintenance .................................................................................. 144

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

Research and special programs .............................................................................. 146

Pipeline safety .......................................................................................................... 148

Emergency preparedness grants ............................................................................ 150

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................. 150

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................. 151

TITLE II—RELATED AGENCIES

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board: Salaries and

expenses ................................................................................................................ 152

National Transportation Safety Board: Salaries and expenses ........................... 152

TITLE III—GENERAL PROVISIONS

General provisions ................................................................................................... 154

Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate .. 158

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 158

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

Senate ................................................................................................................... 159

Budgetary impact statement .................................................................................. 160

(4)

TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY PROVIDED—GENERAL

FUNDS AND TRUST FUNDS

In addition to the appropriation of $22,251,162,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year 2003, 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 2003, estimated obligation limitations and exempt obligations

total $42,475,231,000.

PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY

During fiscal year 2003, for the purposes of the Balanced Budget

and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99–177), as

amended, with respect to appropriations contained in the accompanying bill, the terms ‘‘program, project, and activity’’ shall mean

any item for which a dollar amount is contained in 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.

ACCRUAL FUNDING OF RETIREMENT COSTS AND POSTRETIREMENT HEALTH BENEFITS

The President’s Budget included a legislative proposal under the

jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs to

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

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

employees. The Budget also requested an additional dollar amount

in each affected discretionary account to cover these accrued costs.

The authorizing committee has not acted on this legislation,

therefore the Senate Appropriations Committee has reduced the

5

dollar amounts of the President’s request shown in the ‘‘Comparative Statement of New Budget Authority Request and Amounts

Recommended in the Bill’’, as well as in other tables in this report,

to exclude the accrual funding proposal.

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

a proposal be enacted, a budget amendment formally modifying the

President’s appropriation request for discretionary funding is subsequently transmitted to the Congress.

The Senate Appropriations Committee joins with the House Appropriations Committee in raising concern that this practice, which

has always worked effectively for both Congress and past administrations, was not followed for the accrual funding proposal. In this

case, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) decided to include accrual amounts in the original discretionary appropriations

language request. These amounts are based on legislation that has

yet to be considered and approved by the appropriate committees

of Congress. This led to numerous misunderstandings both inside

and outside of Congress of what was the ‘‘true’’ President’s budget

request. The Committee believes that, in the future, OMB should

follow long-established procedures with respect to discretionary

spending proposals that require legislative action.

(6)

TITLE I—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2002 1 ........................................................................... $67,778,000

Budget estimate, 2003 2 ......................................................................... 92,460,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 73,069,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $488,000 pursuant to section 349 of Public Law 107–87 or reduction of $162,000 pursuant to section 1106 of Public Law 107–117. 2 Excludes $3,640,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals, of which $149,000 is OST share of TASC accruals.

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.

The Committee recommends a total of $73,069,000 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 2002 enacted 1

2003 estimate 2

Immediate Office of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary ..................................... .................... 4,411 ....................

Immediate Office of the Secretary ........................................................................ 1,929 .................... 2,034

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

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

Board of Contract Appeals .................................................................................... 507 611 507

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization ..................................... 1,240 1,304 1,304

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

Office of the Chief Information Officer ................................................................. 5,991 15,987 10,991

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

Office of the General Counsel ............................................................................... 13,275 15,657 13,828

Office of the Under Secretary for Transportation Policy ....................................... .................... 12,453 ....................

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs ............. 7,421 .................... 7,471

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

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs ................................ 7,668 8,375 7,668

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ............................................ 18,890 29,285 20,380

Assistant to the Secretary and Director of Public Affairs .................................... 1,723 1,926 1,723

7

(In thousands of dollars)

Fiscal year— Committee

recommendation 2002 enacted 1

2003 estimate 2

Total .......................................................................................................... 67,128 92,460 73,069

1 Reflects reduction of $650,000 pursuant to section 349 of Public Law 107–87 and section 1106 of Public Law 107–117.. 2 Excludes $3,640,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals.

IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

The Committee recommends $2,034,000 for fiscal year 2003 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 the Department. The additional

funding made available for this office above the comparable fiscal

year 2002 appropriated level is intended to address slightly more

than half of the increased travel funds sought by the Secretary.

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. The amount provided is the same as

the comparable fiscal year 2002 appropriated level.

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

The Committee recommends $13,828,000 for fiscal year 2003 for

the Office of the General Counsel. The Office of the General Counsel provides legal services to the Office of the Secretary including

the conduct of aviation regulatory proceedings and aviation consumer activities 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 $553,000 to be used for the Department’s ‘‘Accessibility

for 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).

This is the only adjustment provided above the comparable fiscal

year 2002 appropriated level.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY

For fiscal year 2003, 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. The amount provided is the

same as the comparable fiscal year 2002 appropriated level.

Tier Matching Based on Fiscal Capability.—At present, Federal

grant programs administered by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, and Federal Transit Administration require an identical match of all communities without reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:06 Aug 01, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX pfrm11 PsN: SR224
8

gard to their financial circumstances. Some have asserted that this

policy places a disproportionate burden on lower-income jurisdictions and prevents these jurisdictions from fully participating in

the very programs necessary to improve conditions. The Committee

takes no position on this assertion. However, for the purpose of information gathering, the Committee separately requests the

FHWA, FAA, and FTA to each provide reports, covering the programs within each administration, to the Committee by March 15,

2003 which address this contention. Should the agencies believe

that contention has merit, they may as part of these reports, propose a tiered matching system for non-Federal contributions based

upon the fiscal capability of the grantee and which does not increase, over the existing grant programs, each program’s cumulative financial burden on each administration.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR AVIATION AND

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

The Committee recommends $7,471,000 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). The amount provided is $50,000 more than the

comparable fiscal year 2002 appropriated level. This increased

amount is intended to cover some of the increased travel costs associated with international aviation negotiations.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends a total of $7,668,000 for the Office

of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. The amount

provided is the same as the comparable fiscal year 2002 appropriated level. 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 reports and reporting requirements, including how delinquent congressionally mandated or

requested reports are and an estimated date for delivery. The ComVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:06 Aug 01, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX pfrm11 PsN: SR224
9

mittee expects that the Department will constitute this responsibility in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.

OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

The Committee recommends $2,282,000 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 amount provided is the same as the

comparable fiscal year 2002 appropriated level. 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 $20,380,000 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 responsible for establishing policies and procedures, setting guidelines, working with the Operating Administrations to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department in human

resource management, security and administrative management,

real and personal property management, and acquisition and

grants management. The amount provided above the comparable

fiscal year 2002 appropriated level is intended to compensate for

some or all of the following requested adjustments:

Increased security investigations ......................................................... ∂$40,000

Protection services for the Secretary ................................................... ∂150,000

HQ building security barriers ............................................................... ∂300,000

OST’s cost to TASC ................................................................................ ∂1,000,000

The Committee has deferred consideration of the requests for secure video conferencing equipment until the issues surrounding the

creation of a new Department of Homeland Security are resolved.

The Committee has not provided funding for a security survey for

the new headquarters building since funding is not provided for the

new headquarters building.

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 news media on transportation programs and issues.

The amount provided is the same as the comparable fiscal year

2002 appropriated level.

10

EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

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

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. The amount

provided is the same as the comparable fiscal year 2002 appropriated level.

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. The amount provided is

the same as the comparable fiscal year 2002 appropriated level.

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

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 $1,304,000, the full amount

requested.

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

The Committee recommends $10,991,000 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. The amount provided is $5,000,000

more than the comparable fiscal year 2002 appropriated level.

The CIO provides leadership for a large information technology

program to ensure that the right investments are made and that

technology resources are secure and accessible.

OFFICE OF INTERMODALISM

The Committee recommends $1,261,000 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, 2002 1 ........................................................................... $8,500,000

Budget estimate, 2003 2 ......................................................................... 8,700,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 8,700,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $60,000 pursuant to section 349 of Public Law 107–87 or reduction of $70,000 pursuant to section 1106 of Public Law 107–117.. 2 Excludes $470,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals.

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

11

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

$8,700,000 for the Office of Civil Rights, the full amount requested.

NEW HEADQUARTERS BUILDING

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. ...........................

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... $25,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ...........................

The administration requested $25,000,000 for the new Department of Transportation headquarters project to consolidate all of

the department’s headquarters operating administration functions

(except FAA and the United States Coast Guard), from various locations into a state-of-the-art efficient leased buildings within the

central employment area of the District of Columbia.

The Committee believes that providing funding for this building

is premature at this time, given the uncertainty surrounding the

possible transfer of certain DOT functions to a new Department of

Homeland Security and the extraordinary investments that the

Transportation Security Administration has already made in the

existing DOT building.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2002 1 ........................................................................... $11,993,000

Budget estimate, 2003 2 ......................................................................... 10,700,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 21,000,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $87,000 pursuant to section 349 of Public Law 107–87 or reduction of $313,000 pursuant to section 1106 of Public Law 107–117. 2 Excludes $135,000 for CSRS/FEHB accruals.

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, 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 $21,000,000 for transportation planning, research, and development, $9,007,000 more

than the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and $10,300,000 more than

the President’s budget request.

Project Name Amount

Bypass Mail System Computer Software & Hardware Upgrades,

AK ........................................................................................................ $500,000

Circumpolar Infrastructure Task Force, Arctic Council & Northern

Forum, AK .......................................................................................... 500,000

Delaware Memorial Bridge Collision Avoidance Project, DE ............. 1,000,000

DOT’s Privacy Practies Third Party Evaluation ................................. 1,000,000

Northeast Advanced Vehicle Consortium Fuel Cell, CT .................... 2,000,000

Office for Infrastructure Transp. & Logistics, AL ............................... 1,000,000

12

Project Name Amount

Strategic Freight Transportation Analysis, WA ................................. 1,500,000

UAL Fuel Cell/Hybrid Electric Research Program, AL ...................... 1,000,000

WestStart’s Vehicular Flywheel Project, WA ...................................... 1,500,000

TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CENTER

Limitation, 2002 1 2 ................................................................................ $125,323,000

Budget estimate, 2003 3 ......................................................................... 131,779,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 131,779,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $5,000,000 pursuant to section 349 of Public Law 107–87 or

reduction of $4,300,000 pursuant to section 1106 of Public Law 107–117. 2Does not reflect $12,100,000 additional obligation limitation pursuant to H.R. 4775.

3Proposed 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.

Services are financed through customer reimbursements. During

the budget formulation phase TASC provides customers with estimates based on historical usage, adjusted for new or changed requirements. TASC is also responsive to newly emerging customer

requirements that may be identified as the program is executed.

Customer estimates are updated mid-year during the execution

phase to provide customers with more current information. TASC

services are delivered to customers through an organizational

structure of individual business practices providing related services

or products. This arrangement allows TASC to achieve economies

of scale, resulting in savings for TASC customers. TASC customers

also benefit from expertise developed in service areas that are used

in the Federal sector, such as transit benefit distribution and technology acquisition. TASC operates under a full cost recovery concept, which incorporates distribution of overhead and indirect cost.

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;

—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.

SMALL COMMUNITY AIR SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PILOT PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $20,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... ...........................

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,000,000

The Committee bill includes $20,000,000, within funds provided

for FAA’s airport improvement program, 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

13

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.

ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE AND RURAL AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT FUND

Approriations Mandatory 3 AIP transfer Total

Appropriations, 2002 1 .................................................. 2 $13,000,000 $50,000,000 ........................ $63,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ................................................. ........................ 30,000,000 $83,000,000 113,000,000

Committee recommendation ......................................... 65,000,000 50,000,000 ........................ 115,000,000

1 Does not include $50,000,000 from payments to Air Carriers (A&ATF) provided in the Emergency Supplemental Act, 2002, Public Law 107– 117. 2 Payments to Air Carriers (Airport and Airway Trust Fund).

3 From overflight fees.

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, than the funds must be

made available from appropriations otherwise made available to

the FAA Administrator.

For fiscal year 2003, the Administration has proposed to transfer

$83,000,000 from the grants-in-aid for airports program (AIP) for

the costs of the EAS program. The Committee has rejected this request as it would strip almost the entire amount of increased funds

available in fiscal year 2003 for investments in airport capacity and

safety projects. The Administration is also proposing bill language

to allow the Secretary to take whatever actions are necessary to

keep the 2003 program within the proposed $113,000,000. The

budget also proposed capping the per passenger subsidy at $275 for

points greater than 210 miles, with the exception of service to communities in Alaska. The Committee does not concur in either of the

Administration’s proposals and has instead provided adequate

sums to provide service to all current and likely eligible points. The

Committee notes that there is anticipated to be an estimated

$13,000,000 in carryover funds brought forward from fiscal year

2002 to fiscal year 2003. Together with these resources, program

funding under the Committee recommendation should equal

$128,000,000 in fiscal year 2003.

The following table reflects the points currently receiving service

and the annual rates as of February 1, 2002 in the continental

United States and Hawaii.

14

EAS SUBSIDY RATES AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 2002

States/communities

Average daily

enplanements at

EAS point (year

ending September

30, 2001)

Annual subsidy

rates (February 1,

2002)

Subsidy per

passenger

Total passengers

(year ending September 30, 2001)

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

ARIZONA:

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

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

Prescott ........................................................ 14.0 541,502 61.80 8762

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

ARKANSAS:

El Dorado/Camden ....................................... 4.1 825,569 317.89 2,597

Harrison ....................................................... 8.6 1,125,591 208.06 5,410

Hot Springs .................................................. 8.4 1,125,591 214.77 5,241

Jonesboro ..................................................... 7.7 825,569 170.85 4,832

CALIFORNIA:

Crescent City ............................................... 43.5 314,865 11.57 27,205

Merced ......................................................... 13.3 949,458 113.99 8,329

COLORADO:

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

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

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

HAWAII:

Hana ............................................................ 12.2 574,500 75.36 7,623

Kamuela ....................................................... 6.0 424,559 112.62 3,770

Kalaupapa .................................................... 5.2 272,807 83.45 3,269

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

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

KANSAS:

Dodge City ................................................... 13.5 564,422 66.86 8,442

Garden City .................................................. 32.2 897,960 44.58 20,141

Great Bend ................................................... 3.9 216,074 87.98 2,456

Hays ............................................................. 24.8 1,152,945 74.18 15,543

LIberal/Guymon ............................................ 10.5 1,083,289 165.14 6,560

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

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

MAINE:

Augusta/Waterville ....................................... 13.7 634,145 73.76 8,597

Bar Harbor ................................................... 40.8 634,145 24.82 25,545

Presque Isle ................................................. 59.6 1,082,408 29.03 37,284

Rockland ...................................................... 23.4 634,145 43.38 14,620

MICHIGAN:

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

Iron Mountain/Kingsford .............................. 28.6 473,599 26.41 17,933

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

MISSOURI:

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

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

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

MONTANA:

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

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

Havre ............................................................ 3.7 707,462 308.13 2,296

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

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

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

Wolf Point .................................................... 5.8 707,462 193.35 3,659

NEBRASKA:

Alliance ........................................................ 2.8 785,175 449.96 1,745

Chadron ....................................................... 5.1 785,175 244.83 3,207

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

McCook ......................................................... 7.6 1,325,289 279.48 4,742

Norfolk .......................................................... 4.8 531,735 175.78 3,025

North Platte ................................................. 24.1 106,006 7.04 15,056

NEVADA: Ely .......................................................... /1 976,533

15

EAS SUBSIDY RATES AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 2002—Continued

States/communities

Average daily

enplanements at

EAS point (year

ending September

30, 2001)

Annual subsidy

rates (February 1,

2002)

Subsidy per

passenger

Total passengers

(year ending September 30, 2001)

NEW MEXICO:

Alamogordo/Holloman .................................. 6.2 923,789 238.40 3,875

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

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

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

NEW YORK:

Massena ....................................................... 9.0 371,835 65.87 5,645

Ogdensburg .................................................. 7.6 371,835 77.72 4,784

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

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

Watertown .................................................... 10.7 371,835 55.33 6,720

NORTH DAKOTA:

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

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

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

OKLAHOMA:

Enid .............................................................. 12.1 972,122 128.15 7,586

Ponca City .................................................... 11.7 972,122 132.23 7,352

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

PUERTO RICO: Ponce ............................................ 19.8 337,551 27.28 12,372

SOUTH DAKOTA:

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

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

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

TEXAS: Brownwood ................................................ 6.8 865,886 202.88 4,268

UTAH:

Cedar City .................................................... 30.3 679,450 35.80 18,978

Moab ............................................................ /1 971,444

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

VERMONT: Rutland ............................................... 9.8 634,145 102.98 6,158

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

WEST VIRGINIA:

Beckley ......................................................... 9.0 857,530 152.07 5,639

Princeton/Bluefield ....................................... 7.5 857,530 181.64 4,721

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

WYOMING:

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

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

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

1 Less than full year data.

MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $900,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 900,000

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

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 2003, 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.

16

Since fiscal year 1993, the short-term lending 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; and, $400,000 is for administrative expenses to carry out the Guaranteed Loan Program.

MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $3,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 3,000,000

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

This appropriation provides contractual support to assist small,

women-owned, Native American, and other disadvantaged business

firms 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. 326), as requested, that allows a fair and sensible allocation of the rebates and miscellaneous other funds.

CHANGES IN FISCAL YEAR 2002 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS

(In thousands of dollars)

Account

Public Law 107–87 DOT Appropriations Act Public Law 107–117 Emergency Supp.

Net 

an

Approprations

and obligations

limitation

Sec. 349 TASC

reduction

Sec. 318

recession

Sec. 329

Amtrak Reform

Council

Sec. 330

Misc. hwy GF

projects

Sec. 350

Border Crossing

Sec. 1106

TASC reduction Chapter 11

Office of the Secretary:

Salaries and expenses .............................................. 67,778 ¥488 ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥162 ........................ ........................ Transportation planning, research, and developme 11,993 ¥87 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥313 ........................ Minority business resources center .......................... 900 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ Minority business outreach ....................................... 3,000 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ Office of civil rights ................................................. 8,500 ¥60 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥70 ........................ Essential air service/payments to air carriers ......... 13,000 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ [50,000] Essential air service (transfer of fees from FAA ..... [50,000] ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ 

Subtotal ................................................................ 105,171 ¥635 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥545 50,000 

Transportation Security Administration:

Transportation Security Administration 1 .................. ........................ ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ 94,800 Transportation Security Administration (fees) .......... [1,250,000] ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ 

U.S. Coast Guard:

Operating Expenses .................................................. 3,382,000 ¥791 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥680 209,150 Acquisition, construction, and improvements .......... 636,354 ¥158 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥136 ........................ Environmental compliance and restoration .............. 16,927 ¥5 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥4 ........................ Alteration of bridges ................................................. 15,466 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ Retired pay ................................................................ 876,346 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ Reserve training ........................................................ 83,194 ¥22 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥19 ........................ Research, development, test, and evaluation .......... 20,222 ¥3 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥3 ........................ 

Subtotal ................................................................ 5,030,509 ¥979 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥842 209,150 

Federal Aviation Administration:

Operations ................................................................. 6,886,000 ¥1,516 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥1,304 200,000 Facilities and equipment .......................................... 2,914,000 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ 108,500 Facilities and equipment, rescission of py BA ........ ¥15,000 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ Research, engineering, and development ................ 195,000 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ 50,000 Grants-in-aid for airports (obligation limitatio ........ 3,300,000 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ 

CHANGES IN FISCAL YEAR 2002 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS—Continued

(In thousands of dollars)

Account

Public Law 107–87 DOT Appropriations Act Public Law 107–117 Emergency Supp.

Net 

an

Approprations

and obligations

limitation

Sec. 349 TASC

reduction

Sec. 318

recession

Sec. 329

Amtrak Reform

Council

Sec. 330

Misc. hwy GF

projects

Sec. 350

Border Crossing

Sec. 1106

TASC reduction Chapter 11

Grants-in-aid for airports (rescission of contra ...... ¥301,720 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ Grants-in-aid for airports (TF appropriations) ......... ........................ ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ 175,000 

Subtotal ................................................................ 12,978,280 ¥1,516 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥1,304 533,500 1

Federal Highway Administration:

Limitation on administrative expenses .................... [311,000] [¥452] ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... [¥389] ........................ Federal-aid highways (obligation limitation) 2 ......... 31,799,104 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ 3Emergency relief (CA) ............................................... [100,000] ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ Emergency relief (TF approp) ................................... ........................ ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ 75,000 Exempt obligations ................................................... 965,308 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ Appalachian Development Highway System ............. 200,000 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ State infrastructure banks, rescission of py BA ...... ¥5,750 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ Miscellaneous appropriations (GF) ........................... ........................ ........................ ...................... ...................... 144,000 ...................... ........................ 4,300 Miscellaneous highway projects (TF) ........................ ........................ ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ 100,000 Value Pricing and TIFIA, rescission of CA ................ ¥52,973 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ 

Subtotal ................................................................ 32,905,689 [¥452] ...................... ...................... 144,000 ...................... [¥389] 179,300 3

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration:

National motor carrier safety program (obligation) 205,896 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ Motor carrier safety (limitation on administrati ...... 110,000 ¥85 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥73 ........................ Border Enforcement (TF) ........................................... ........................ ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... 25,866 ........................ ........................ Limitation on admin. expenses, rescission of CA .... ¥6,665 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ 

Subtotal ................................................................ 309,231 ¥85 ...................... ...................... ...................... 25,866 ¥73 ........................ 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:

Operations and Research, General Fund .................. 127,780 ¥536 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥461 ........................ Operations and Research, Trust Fund (obligation ... 72,000 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ National driver registration ...................................... 2,000 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ 

Highway safety grants .............................................. 223,000 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ 

Subtotal ................................................................ 424,780 ¥536 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥461 ........................ 

Federal Railroad Administration:

Safety and operations ............................................... 110,857 ¥175 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥150 6,000 Research and development ...................................... 29,000 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ Next generation high speed rail ............................... 32,300 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ Alaska railroad rehabilitation ................................... 20,000 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ Grants to Nat’l RR Passenger Corp ......................... 521,476 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ 100,000 Pennsylania Station redevelopment .......................... 20,000 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ Amtrak reform council .............................................. ........................ ........................ ...................... 225 ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ 

Subtotal ................................................................ 733,633 ¥175 ...................... 225 ...................... ...................... ¥150 106,000 

Federal Transit Administration:

Administrative expenses (approps and oblig limit .. 67,000 [¥208] ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... [¥179] ........................ Formula grants (approps and oblig limitation) 3 ..... 3,542,000 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ 23,500 Univ. transporation research (approps and oblig .... 6,000 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ Transit planning and research (approps and oblig 116,000 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ Capital investment grants (approps and oblig lim 2,891,000 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ 100,000 Capital investment grants (Trust Fund approps) .... ........................ ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ ......Job access (approps and oblig limitation) .............. 125,000 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ 

Subtotal ................................................................ 6,747,000 [¥208] ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... [¥179] 123,500 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corp:

Operations and maintenance ................................... 13,345 ¥11 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥10 ........................ 

Research and Special Programs Administration:

Research and special programs ............................... 37,279 ¥113 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥97 2,500 Pipeline safety .......................................................... 58,250 ¥74 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥64 ........................ Emergency preparedness grants .............................. 14,300 ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ 

Subtotal ................................................................ 109,829 ¥187 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥161 2,500 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics 4 ................................ [31,000] [¥103] ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... [¥89] ........................ Office of the Inspector General: Salaries and expenses 5 50,614 ¥108 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥93 1,300 

CHANGES IN FISCAL YEAR 2002 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS—Continued

(In thousands of dollars)

Account

Public Law 107–87 DOT Appropriations Act Public Law 107–117 Emergency Supp.

Net 

an

Approprations

and obligations

limitation

Sec. 349 TASC

reduction

Sec. 318

recession

Sec. 329

Amtrak Reform

Council

Sec. 330

Misc. hwy GF

projects

Sec. 350

Border Crossing

Sec. 1106

TASC reduction Chapter 11

Surface Transportation Board:

Salaries and expenses .............................................. 18,457 ¥5 ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ¥4 ........................ Salaries and expenses (fees) ................................... [950] ........................ ...................... ...................... ...................... ...................... ........................ ........................ 

Total, Department of Transportation (excluding

Maritime Administration) ................................. 59,426,538 ¥4,237 ...................... 225 144,000 25,866 ¥3,643 1,300,050 6

1 Does not include reallocation of Public Law 107¥38 funds of $760 million from FEMA to TSA.2 Net of transfer of RABA to FMCSA.3 Reflects $50 million BA transfer from formula grants to capital discretionary.4 BTS funding included within Federal-aid highways.5 Does not include $5.5 million reimbursable from FHWA and FTA.

21

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2003 PROGRAM

Appropriation Offsetting Collections

Appropriations, 2002 1 2 .................................................................................................. $1,250,000,000 $1,250,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ................................................................................................... 4,800,000,000 2,347,000,000

Committee recommendation ........................................................................................... 4,950,000,000 2,347,000,000

1 Does not include: (1) an additional $780,000,000 in supplemental funding provided to FAA for, among other things, security within the

aircraft, explosives detection systems, and designated pilot and demonstration projects; (2) $298,000,000 in appropriated funding provided to

FAA for functions now performed by TSA, including the transfer of the Civil Aviation Security organization, research and development, and explosives detection systems; and, (3) $93,000,000 provided for port security grants. 2 Does not $2.85,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2002 to support TSA operations.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was established on November 19, 2001, with the enactment of the Aviation

and Transportation Security Act (Act) into law. The Act created

TSA within the Department of Transportation and identified a series of objectives and authorities under which TSA would improve

security across all modes of transportation for the American public.

As called for in the Act, TSA is charged with ensuring security

across the U.S. transportation system. TSA’s mission is to protect

the Nation’s transportation systems by safeguarding the freedom of

movement of people and commerce. TSA will be responsible for providing security to the Nation’s transportation systems including

aviation, railways, highways, pipelines, and waterways. The Act for

the first time made overall aviation security a direct Federal responsibility.

The Committee recommends $4,950,000,000 for the activities of

the Transportation Security Administration for fiscal year 2003.

The amount provided is $150,000,000 more than the budget request.

Challenges for the Transportation Security Administration

(TSA).—In the Committee’s view, the initial performance of the

Transportation Security Administration has been disappointing.

There is no question that the deadlines imposed by the Aviation

and Transportation Security Act would be extraordinarily challenging for any agency to meet, even one that has been up and running for several decades. That said, the Committee has not been

satisfied with the agency’s performance to date, especially in the

manner in which the agency has communicated with the Committee and the general public. Budget materials provided by the

agency to the Committee have lacked the level of specificity and

clarity that is necessary for the Committee to conduct proper oversight and allocate taxpayer funds. Even more importantly, the

agency’s posture with its public stakeholders has been characterized by arrogance and disregard of the public’s views. This is particularly troubling given the fact that the agency’s core mission is

to reassure the public as to the safety of the Nation’s transportation system. The Committee hopes and expects that the recent

change in leadership at the agency will signal a new day in the

way the agency interacts with the Committee and the general public.

Programs, Projects and Activities (PPAs).—As discussed above,

the Committee has struggled to ascertain the TSA’s spending plans

based on the budget documentation submitted by the agency. The

22

statement of managers accompanying the Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002 noted that, at present, there are no

clearly defined Programs, Projects, and Activities (PPA’s) established for the TSA’s budget. The Committee anxiously awaits the

TSA’s submission of proposed PPA’s so that the Committee can better understand and review the agency’s spending priorities. Until

the agency and the Committee comes to closure on defined PPA’s

for the TSA budget, the Committee cannot articulate its funding

recommendation in the context of adjustments to the President’s

Budget. As such, the following table displays the minimum

amounts provided by the Committee for the following activities.

Modification of Airports to Install Checked Baggage Explosive Detection Systems Including Trace Detection Systems ....................... $200,000,000

Procurement of Explosive Detection Systems and Trace Detection

Systems ............................................................................................... 1 124,000,000

Intercity Bus Security Initiative .......................................................... 15,000,000

Operation Safe Commerce .................................................................... 35,000,000

Security Research .................................................................................. 25,000,000

Grants to Port Authorities for Security Enhancements ..................... 100,000,000

Transportation Information Operations Center (TIOC) ..................... 3,500,000

1 Includes transfer of $55,000,000 from FAA facilities and equipment.

Modification of Airports to Install EDS and ETD Systems.—In

reviewing the TSA’s belated budget submission, the Committee was

dismayed to learn that no additional funds have been budgeted for

fiscal year 2003 for airport modifications necessary to install Explosive Detection Systems (EDS) and Explosive Trace Detection (ETD)

systems. Over the course of the next several weeks, the TSA will

attempt to install massive amounts of explosive detection equipment in the Nation’s airports in order to comply with the ATSA’s

December 31st deadline for screening all checked baggage for explosives. By the agency’s own admission, many of the measures

that will be necessary to install and operate this equipment on

such a short timeline will present considerable inconvenience to

airline passengers, air carriers, airport manager’s and airportbased venders. In many instances, for the lack of time and money

to install explosive detection systems as part of the airport’s central

baggage processing system, explosive detection equipment will be

required to be installed in terminal space currently used by airline

passengers.

The Committee, unlike the TSA, is not prepared to allow this

less-than-satisfactory situation to persist for a number of years

while the agency pursues the development of next-generation explosive detection technologies. As such the Committee has provided

$200,000,000 for fiscal year 2003 for the purpose of improving upon

the interim deployment plans that will be necessary to comply with

the December 31 deadline. The Committee expects these funds to

be used to retrofit those airports that will face the greatest difficulty in minimizing the inconvenience of air passengers in complying with the December 31 deadline.

Credentialing and screening of aviation workers.—The statement

of managers accompanying the second Supplemental Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002 expressed a number of concerns regarding TSA’s planned deployment of its transportation worker

identity card (TWIC) initiative. The Committee of Conference to

that bill went on to prohibit the TSA from obligating any funds for

23

this initiative until the agency reports to the House and Senate

Committees on Appropriations on the concerns cited in the statement of managers and the agency receives written reprogramming

approval from both Committees. In developing his reprogramming

request, the Committee expects the Under Secretary to be particularly attentive to the immediate need for improved credentialing to

allow for the expeditious and seamless movement of airline and airport employees. The fact that airline and airport workers have already undergone background investigations should facilitate this

effort. The Committee expects the Under Secretary to promptly develop a credentialing system that is accepted throughout the airport network and is supported by a centralized database so that access limitations can be communicated promptly throughout the system. With regard to security screening, it is imperative that TSA

develop a new screening process for airline and airport employees.

This process should be conducted at separate portals from the

screening of passengers and should be tailored to the minimal security risk posed by aviation employees. The TSA’s current screening

methods for aviation employees diverts limited security resources

away from the real risks to the air transportation system and needlessly creates delays for workers providing time-critical aviation

services on behalf of the traveling public. The Committee believes

that TSA would benefit from the appointment of a taskforce to assist in the development of this new credentialing and screening

system. Such a taskforce should include representatives from airlines, airports, and aviation labor. The Committee will carefully review the Under Secretary’s reprogramming requests to determine

the extent of his responsiveness to the Committee’s stated concerns

and directives in this area.

Intercity Bus Security.—The Committee has provided an addi- tional $15,000,000 for the TSA’s continued efforts in the area of improving security in the intercity bus industry. These funds will better insure the security of millions of passengers that use the nation’s intercity bus network.

Operation Safe Commerce.—The Committee has provided

$30,000,000 for the continued deployment of Operation Safe Commerce. These funds shall be subject to the same terms and conditions as articulated in the Committee report accompanying the fiscal year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Bill. The amount provided is $2,000,000 more than the amount provided for fiscal year

2002.

Security Research.—TSA will conduct research and development

activities in an effort to improve current security technology. This

research will be targeted toward methodologies of detecting potential chemical, biological or similar threats and devices that could be

released on an aircraft or within an airport.

Pilot projects.—The Committee has provided funding in previous

appropriations acts for the TSA to conduct pilot projects to demonstrate and evaluate promising security technologies and concepts. Pilot projects provide useful data and practical experience regarding the effect of innovative approaches and technology in improving aviation security. As the newest large hub airport, Denver

International Airport (DIA) is well-suited as a location for testing

new security systems, and the Committee encourages the Under

24

Secretary to consider DIA as a candidate for conducting pilot

projects, including tests of new explosive detection equipment.

Security Research Centers.—The FAA has established strong collaborative research efforts with universities and private industry,

and this beneficial arrangement has helped advanced a variety of

aviation interests. The Committee believes that the Under Secretary could achieve similar benefits in the area of transportation

security by establishing similar alliances. Therefore, the Committee

encourages the Under Secretary, as the TSA continues to refine its

research and development program, to utilize expertise at the following institutions: Center for Industrial Competitiveness at the

University of Massachusetts-Lowell; National Institute for Advanced Transportation Technology at the University of Idaho; State

University System of Florida’s Consortium for Intermodal Transportation Safety and Security; Aviation Institute at the University

of Nebraska at Omaha; and, the Center of Excellence for Aviation

Security.

Oversize Inspection System.—The Committee encourages the

Under Secretary to develop of a prototype oversize inspection system which uses multiple analysis techniques, including a high penetration beam and high performance sensors, to screen cargo containers, vehicles, and other large objects.

Automated Surveillance System.—The Committee encourages the

Under Secretary to develop airport checkpoint security and process

management initiative at the Wichita Mid-Continent Airport that

links video technology with advanced software for real-time identification of security risks and can alert appropriate security personnel.

Remote baggage screening.—The Committee encourages the

Under Secretary to develop a pilot project at Anchorage International Airport that will evaluate the potential of a rapid baggage

movement system to screen checked luggage for explosives at an

off-site facility.

Grants to Port Authorities for Security Enhancements.—The Committee has provided $100,000,000 for port security grants in fiscal

year 2003. These grants will be competitively awarded by the

Under Secretary for the purpose of assessing and improving security at the Nation’s seaports. While a total of $218,000,000 was

made available for this activity between the first and second Supplemental Appropriations Acts for 2002, the Department of Transportation’s solicitation for applications demonstrated an initial demand for these grants of almost $700,000,000. Funds provided in

fiscal year 2003 will help meet this demand.

Integrated Port Security Pilot Projects.—The Committee is supportive of a series of integrated port security pilot projects that involve information sharing between the busiest container and cruise

ship ports in the southeastern United States. In distributing funds

under the port security grant program for fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003, the Committee encourages the Under Secretary to

positively consider applications for such an integrated set of pilot

projects. Elements of these pilot projects might include the improvement of surveillance systems, the use of smart cards and biometric technology, vehicular traffic control, cargo inspection, improved communications infrastructure and information systems inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:06 Aug 01, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX pfrm11 PsN: SR224
25

frastructure, as well as passenger and baggage screening for cruise

ship passengers.

Transportation Information Operations Center (TIOC).—As part

of the budget request for the Fiscal Year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act the Secretary of Transportation requested

$3,500,000 for the establishment of a Transportation Information

Operations Center at DOT headquarters. The Committee of Conference on the fiscal year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Bill

deferred consideration of this request, given the uncertainty surrounding what security responsibilities would reside within DOT

should a new Office of Homeland Security be established. The Committee has provided the necessary funding for the establishment of

the TIOC at this time and will continue to monitor whether such

a facility will be necessary when, and if, there is a newly established distribution of security responsibilities within the Federal

Government.

Fitness for Duty Requirements.—The Committee is concerned

that the Under Secretary has not as yet implemented the new requirement imposed by the Aviation and Transportation Security

Act that airport security screeners demonstrate daily their fitnessfor-duty without impairment due to fatigue, medications, drug use

or alcohol. The Committee strongly recommends that the Under

Secretary make expedited use of currently available fitness-for-duty

technology to assess daily the alertness of airport security.

Air Marshall air-ground communications.—Funding was provided in fiscal year 2002 for procurement of air-ground communications systems for Federal air marshals. The Committee expects the

Under Secretary to proceed expeditiously with this procurement

and begin installation of such systems on major commercial passenger aircraft as soon as possible.

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

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

$6,071,978,000 for the activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year

2003. This represents an increase of $832,319,000 (16 percent)

above the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations:

26

[In thousands of dollars]

Program

Fiscal year— Committee recommendations 5

2002 enacted 1 3 2003 estimate 4

Operating expenses 2 ........................................................................... 3,382,000,000 4,153,456,000 4,318,456,000

1 Excludes reduction of $1,471,000 pursuant to Public Law 107–87 and 107–117. 2 Includes funding for national security activities of the Coast Guard scored against budget function 050 (defense discretionary) as follows:

fiscal year 2002 enacted amount includes $440,000,000 in defense discretionary funding; fiscal year 2003 estimate includes $340,000,000

and fiscal year 2003 Committee recommendation includes $340,000,000. 3 Excludes $209,150,000 in Emergency Supplemental Appropriations, pursuant to Public Law 107–117. 4 Excludes $22,284,000 in civilian and $293,858,000 in military accruals. Excludes $165,000,000 in new user fee revenue.

5 Includes $300,000,000 provided in the Department of Defense appropriations bill.

OPERATING EXPENSES

General Trust New user fee

revenue Total

Appropriations, 2002 125 ............................. $3,357,055,000 $24,945,000 ............................ $3,382,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 3 .............................. 4,129,126,000 25,000,000 $165,000,000 4,318,456,000

Committee recommendation 4 6 .................... 4,293,456,000 25,000,000 ............................ 4,318,456,000

1 Includes $440,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).

2 Excludes reduction of $1,471,000 rescission pursuant to Public Laws 107–87 and 107–117. 3 Includes $340,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).

4 Includes $340,000,000 for national security activities including drug interdiction scored against budget function 050 (defense). 5 Excludes $209,150,000 in Emergency Supplemental Appropriations pursuant to Public Law 107–117. 6 Includes $300,000,000 provided in the Department of Defense appropriations bill.

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

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.

27

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 $4,318,456,000, including $25,000,000 from the oil spill liability trust fund and $340,000,000 from function 050 for the Coast

Guard’s defense-related activities including drug interdiction. With- in the amount recommended, $300,000,000 is provided in the Department of Defense appropriations bill. This is $165,000,000 more

than the budget request and $936,456,000 (27 percent) more than

the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.

Mission Emphasis.—The Coast Guard responded to the terrorist

attacks of last September in an unprecedented and dramatic manner. In doing so, they refocused nearly all of their personnel and

redirected most of their cutters, boats and aircraft on domestic

maritime security. While the Coast Guard has on a number of occasions been required to rapidly shift its mission emphasis, the extent of the shift to domestic security that followed the events of

September 11th was certainly unprecedented in the history of the

Coast Guard. The Committee believes that the Coast Guard acted

with extraordinary professionalism and heroism during this period

of rapid transformation. At the same time, the Committee has concerns regarding the Coast Guard’s ability to once again achieve

mission balance and adequately address its other critical missions—missions including Search and Rescue, Drug and Migrant

Interdiction, the maintenance of Aids to Navigation and ensuring

the safety and integrity of our domestic fishing grounds.

As part of the Committee’s annual hearing regarding the Coast

Guard’s budget request, the DOT Inspector General reported that

the service deployed 59 percent of its resources on port safety and

security missions immediately following September 11th. Those resources included the Coast Guard’s core Search and Rescue vessels,

some of which were repositioned far away from their optimal location for conducting their Search and Rescue mission. Indeed, the

IG noted that the Coast Guard’s small boat stations experienced a

50 percent increase in operating hours as they sought to perform

all of their new port security responsibilities at the same time they

were seeking to maintain an effective Search and Rescue program.

The information provided below illustrates exactly how the Coast

Guard directed its mission emphasis over the last year. It depicts

an overall increase in operating hours in the first quarter of fiscal

year 2002 reflecting the rapid response to the terrorist attacks.

That surge began to level off in the third quarter of fiscal year

2002 as the Coast Guard sought to return to a more balanced level

of effort across its missions. A review of the data for the third quarter of fiscal year 2002—the most recent quarter for which data is

available—reveals that many of the missions that suffered the

greatest diminution of effort following September 11th have not yet

returned to their baseline level. Indeed, the Committee is greatly

28

concerned that the agencies new emphasis on security, as articulated in its fiscal year 2003 budget request, means that the Coast

Guard has no intention of restoring missions like drug interdiction

and fisheries enforcement to their pre-September 11th levels.

29

30

The Committee does not question the need for a more robust

homeland security focus on the part of the Coast Guard. Even so,

the Committee is disappointed that, at a time when the Administration is requesting an historic and well deserved funding increase

for the Coast Guard, almost the entire increase is devoted to expanded homeland defense efforts. Indeed, the documentation accompanying this budget request confirms the agency’s intention to

continue to de-emphasize its non-homeland defense missions while

its budget grows. The Committee does not agree that, at a time

31

when the Coast Guard’s operating budget is growing by doubledigit percentages, the taxpayer should be content with a diminished effort in the areas of marine safety, marine environmental

protection, drug interdiction and fisheries enforcement.

In order to address this concern, the Committee is granting the

Commandant the flexibility to redress this imbalance. The Committee fully funds the $21,724,000 sought for Maritime Search and

Rescue improvements—budget category IV F—and disallows funding for budget category IV G since this item is not consistent with

the Coast Guard’s Ports and Waterways Safety Systems (PAWSS) strategy. With the more than $450,000,000 in additional funding

provided in this appropriation to operate new facilities and commence or enhance new initiatives, the Committee expects the Commandant to launch his highest priority initiatives for homeland defense while leaving himself sufficient resources to return his nonhomeland security missions to their pre-September 11th levels.

The Committee directs the Commandant to submit a detailed report as to how he will achieve this objective as part of his budget

submission for fiscal year 2004. This report should include a detailed revised distribution of fiscal year 2003 resources in comparison to the line items initially requested in the fiscal year 2003

budget request. In order to monitor the Commandant’s progress toward this goal, the Committee directs the Commandant to submit

quarterly reports to the Committee detailing the resource hours

achieved by mission. This report should also include district-by-district data for aircraft, cutter, and boat hours by mission area. The

report should also compare this data to the comparable data for the

eight quarters that preceded September 11, 2001. These reports

will be submitted using the same deadlines and restrictions pertaining to the agency’s Quarterly Acquisition Reports.

The Committee recognizes that the integrity of the Coast Guard’s

mission hour data has been compromised in the past due to inconsistencies in unit’s reporting practices in the field. The Committee

commends the Commandant’s efforts to date to improve the accuracy of this data and requests that the DOT Inspector General periodically monitor the reporting of this data as well as the accuracy

of the quarterly mission hour reports to be submitted to the Committee.

Flag Officer Billets.—The Committee has provided sufficient

funds for the retention of 34 flag billets in fiscal year 2003, the full

amount requested in the Coast Guard’s budget request. The Committee notes that the number of flag officer billets has grown steadily in the last few years even though the Coast Guard has consistently had the lowest ratio of officers to flag officers and enlisted

personnel to flag officers of any of the military services. The Committee recognizes that an even higher level of flag officer billets

may be authorized. However, the Committee is concerned that the

budget justifications submitted to the Committee have not accurately reflected the number of flag officers requested for the budget

year. Specifically, the budget justification for fiscal year 2000 identified an expectation for one additional flag billet in the budget

year. With the arrival of the 2001 budget request, the Committee

discovered that the service added two additional flag billets in fiscal year 2000. Similarly, the 2002 budget request did not identify

32

any growth in the number of flag officers for that year. With the

arrival of the budget request for 2003, the Committee discovered

that the service had indeed added another flag officer in 2002. For

fiscal year 2003, the budget request seeks a total of 34 flag officers

and the Committee has provided sufficient sums for that number.

Navigational Assistance Services Fees.—For the second consecutive year, the Administration had proposed the initiation of new

Navigational Assistance Service fees. The effect of this proposal is

to lower the actual appropriation requirement for Coast Guard operating expenses in fiscal year 2003 by $165,000,000 by requiring

the users of Coast Guard services to cover those costs. The Committee has, again, rejected this approach and provided sufficient

appropriations to cover all of the Coast Guard’s needs.

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 $312,000 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.

Great Lakes Pilotage.—The Committee is informed that the

Great Lakes ports collectively petitioned the Coast Guard in July

2001 to publish for public comment a proposed plan to streamline

and modernize the pilotage system on the Great Lakes. The Committee is concerned that the Coast Guard has not acted on this petition. The Committee urges the Coast Guard to seek public comment on this issue.

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.

Oil spill prevention, 13th District.—Within the amount provided,

the Committee has provided $1,600,000 for enhanced oil spill prevention activities in the waters of Washington State. These additional funds shall be under the sole control of the Captain of the

Port-Puget Sound and will be in addition to any and all funds that

would normally be allocated for marine environmental protection

activities to that unit under the President’s budget request. The

Captain of the Port-Puget Sound is the Federal official solely responsible for preventing the accidental release of oil from tankers

entering the Straits of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound. As such,

the Committee expects the Captain of the Port to use his professional judgment in allocating these funds to measures that he believes will best protect these waters. Such measures could include

a cost sharing arrangement with the State of Washington for the

hiring of a rescue tug at Neah Bay. However, these funds could be

allocated to alternative measures if, in the view of the Captain of

the Port, such alternative measures will provide a superior level of

protection. The Committee expects the Commandant to forward to

the Committee a spend plan for these funds once the Captain of

33

the Port has decided on the appropriate approach to enhancing environmental protection in his area of operation.

Station Indian River Inlet Staffing.—The Committee is aware

that a staffing shortage may exist at Coast Guard Station Indian

River Inlet following the addition of new security requirements.

The station, which is currently staffed by nine personnel, acts as

the gateway to the ports of Wilmington, Delaware and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The men and women at this station maintain

a safe and secure waterway for vessels traveling to these ports.

They also provide waterside security for the Salem Nuclear Power

Plant, bridges over navigational waters, oil refineries and tourist

attractions along the Delaware River, Delaware Bay and Delaware’s Atlantic Coast. As such, the Commandant is directed to

evaluate the staffing levels at this station to determine if additional staffing is necessary.

Coastwise Endorsements.—More than 5 years after Congress enacted section 113(d) of the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1996

(now codified at 46 U.S.C. 12106(e)), the Agency has yet to promulgate regulations implementing the provision. The Committee is

concerned that the resulting lack of Federal direction could allow

control over U.S. coastwise vessels by foreign companies who may

use tax and other advantages to compete unfairly with U.S. companies in domestic commerce. The Congressional intent in 1996,

which has not changed in enacting section 113(d), was to provide

U.S.-based coastwise vessel operators with broadened sources of investment capital. At no time did Congress intend that section

113(d) be interpreted as a means of undermining the integrity of

the Jones Act and related Maritime Cabotage laws. Until the rule

implementing subsection 12106(e) is published in final form, the

Committee expects the Coast Guard to ensure that any application

approved under this provision is fully consistent with the intent of

Congress as stated in the 1996 Conference Report.

Datum marker buoys (DMBs).—The Committee allowance includes not less than $1,000,000 for the continued procurement of

Datum Marker Buoys.

Maritime Electro-Optical Infrared (EO/IR) Handheld and Fixed

Sensors.—Within the funds provided, the Committee provides

$5,000,000 for Maritime Electro-Optical Sensors. Of this amount,

$3,000,000 shall be derived from budget category IV G and

$2,000,000 from the additional funds provided. These sensors are

on cutters, patrol boats, as well as for Marine Safety Offices and

Marine Safety and Security Teams. They will assist in both the

maritime safety and security mission goals by enabling Coast

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

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.

34

ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS

General Trust Total

Appropriations, 2002 1 ............................................................................... $616,354,000 $20,000,000 $636,354,000

Budget estimate, 2003 2 ............................................................................ 705,000,000 20,000,000 725,000,000

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... ........................ ........................ 725,000,000

1 Excludes reduction of $294,000 pursuant to Public Law 107–87 and 107–117. 2 Excludes $1,266,000 in civilian and $9,580,000 in military accurals.

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 a 420-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 $725,000,000 for acquisition, con- struction, and improvements, including $20,000,000 from the oil

spill liability trust fund. This represents an increase of $88,646,000

(14 percent) above last year’s enacted level and is the same as the

budget request.

The following table summarizes the Committee’s programmatic

recommendations:

Fiscal year 2002

enacted 1

Fiscal year 2003

estimate

Committee recommendation

Vessels ............................................................................................. $89,640,000 $13,600,000 $13,600,000

Integrated Deepwater Systems Program ......................................... 320,190,000 500,000,000 480,000,000

Aircraft ............................................................................................. 9,500,000 ............................ ..........................

Other equipment .............................................................................. 79,293,000 117,700,000 117,700,000

Shore facilities and aids to navigation .......................................... 73,100,000 28,700,000 45,700,000

Personnel and related support ........................................................ 64,631,000 65,000,000 65,000,000

Total .................................................................................... 636,354,000 725,000,000 725,000,000

1 Excludes reduction of $294,000 rescission pursuant to Public Laws 107–87 and 108–117.

The following table compares the fiscal year 2002 enacted level,

the fiscal year 2003 estimate, and the recommended level by program, project, and activity.

Program name

Fiscal year Committee recommendation 2002 enacted 2003 estimate

Vessels:

Survey and design—cutters and boats ........................................... $500,000 $400,000 $400,000

Seagoing buoytenders (WLB) replacement ....................................... 68,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000

Polar class reliability improvement (RIP) ......................................... 4,490,000 2,200,000 2,200,000

41 foot utility boat replacement ...................................................... 12,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000

85 foot fast patrol craft ................................................................... 4,650,000 ........................ ........................

Alex Haley conversion ....................................................................... ........................ 3,000,000 3,000,000

Subtotal vessels ........................................................................... 89,640,000 13,600,000 13,600,000

35

Program name

Fiscal year Committee recommendation 2002 enacted 2003 estimate

Integrated Deepwater Systems program (IDS):

Aircraft .............................................................................................. 35,700,000 138,200,000 135,200,000

Surface ships .................................................................................... 36,700,000 215,700,000 212,700,000

C4ISR ................................................................................................ 106,500,000 ........................ ........................

Logistics ............................................................................................ 71,200,000 71,600,000 66,600,000

Other contracts ................................................................................. 39,800,000 43,500,000 36,500,000

Government Program Management .................................................. 30,300,000 31,000,000 29,000,000

Subtotal IDS ................................................................................. 320,200,000 500,000,000 480,000,000

Aircraft:

Aviation parts and support .............................................................. 9,000,000 ........................ ........................

C130J system provisioning and training analyses .......................... 500,000 ........................ ........................

Subtotal aircraft ........................................................................... 9,500,000 ........................ ........................

Other Equipment:

Ports and Waterways Safety Systems (PAWSS) ................................ 6,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000

Marine information for safety & law enforcement ........................... 7,450,000 ........................ ........................

National distress system modernization .......................................... 42,000,000 90,000,000 90,000,000

Defense message system implementation ....................................... 1,500,000 2,100,000 2,100,000

Commercial satellite communication ............................................... 1,500,000 ........................ ........................

Global maritime distress and safety system ................................... 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000

Search and rescue capabilities ........................................................ 1,320,000 ........................ ........................

Thirteenth district microwave modernization ................................... 800,000 3,000,000 3,000,000

Hawaii Rainbow communications system ........................................ 3,100,000 3,000,000 3,000,000

High frequency recapitalizaion & modernization ............................. 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000

Prince William Sound Microwave wide-area .................................... ........................ 1,000,000 1,000,000

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

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

Configuration management—phase II ............................................. 3,000,000 ........................ ........................

Self-contained breathing apparatus ................................................ 1,000,000 ........................ ........................

Maritime electro-optical sensors ...................................................... 4,000,000 ........................ ........................

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

Maritime domain awareness information ......................................... ........................ 9,400,000 9,400,000

Subtotal other equipment ............................................................ 79,293,000 117,700,000 117,700,000

Shore Facilities & aids to navigation:

Survey and design—shore projects ................................................. 4,000,000 2,500,000 2,500,000

Minor AC&I shore construction projects ........................................... 4,000,000 4,900,000 4,900,000

Housing ............................................................................................. 13,500,000 7,000,000 7,000,000

Waterways ATON projects ................................................................. 5,500,000 4,900,000 4,900,000

Rebuild Station Port Huron, MI ........................................................ 3,100,000 ........................ ........................

Consolidate warehouse—CG Yard, MD ............................................ 12,600,000 ........................ ........................

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

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

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

Consolidate Kodiak aviation support—Kodiak, AK .......................... 5,700,000 4,000,000 4,000,000

Reconstruct north wall, Escanaba Municipal dock .......................... 300,000 ........................ ........................

Rebuild ISC Seattle Pier 36—Phase I ............................................. 10,000,000 ........................ 16,000,000

CG Marine safety & rescue station, Chicago, IL ............................. 2,000,000 ........................ ........................

Vessel pier facility, Cordova Ak ........................................................ ........................ ........................ 4,000,000

Station Manistee, MI construction .................................................... ........................ 5,400,000 5,400,000

Subtotal shore facilities ............................................................... 73,100,000 28,700,000 48,700,000

Personnel and Related Support:

Direct personnel costs ...................................................................... 63,931,000 64,500,000 64,500,000

Core acquisition costs ...................................................................... 700,000 500,000 500,000

Subtotal personnel and related support ...................................... 64,631,000 65,000,000 65,000,000

Total appropriation ....................................................................... 636,354,000 725,000,000 725,000,000

36

VESSELS

Response Boat Small.—The Committee notes that the Coast

Guard is procuring a new standard small boat to provide the lower

range capability of its shore-based response system. These Response Boats will be procured under an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract for a period of seven years, with an

initial purchase quantity of 100 boats and a maximum quantity of

700. The Committee notes with concern, however, that the Coast

Guard in the FRP has specified a specific design technology for the

outboard motors that will power the Response Boat Small fleet.

It has been reported to the Committee that the decision on the

specified engine technology may have been based on an out-of-date

survey. The Committee, however, is more concerned that a Coast

Guard FRP would still limit competition by mandating a specific

engine technology rather than use a performance-based specification to maximize competition while ensuring all basic requirements

are met this far into the era of procurement reform.

Accordingly, prior to exercising any options beyond the purchase

of the first 100 boats, the Coast Guard may modify the contract to

be either a pure performance-based specification or to specifically

allow both direct injection and four-stroke engines to be considered

by boat manufacturers as long as they meet the requisite performance and environmental criteria and such a change is merited

based on the results of the most recent internal Coast Guard study.

INTEGRATED DEEPWATER SYSTEMS PROGRAM

The Committee has provided $480,000,000 for the Integrated

Deepwater Systems (IDS) program, which is $159,800,000 or 50

percent more than the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and

$20,000,000 less the budget request.

NATIONAL DISTRESS AND RESPONSE SYSTEM MODERNIZATION

PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $90,000,000 requested for the modernization of the National Distress and Response System (NDRS),

which is effectively the maritime 911 system for mariners in distress.

OTHER EQUIPMENT

The Committee provided $117,700,000 for Other Equipment

which is the same as the budget request.

SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION

Minor AC&I Shore Construction Projects.—The Committee recommends $4,900,000 for Minor AC&I shore constructions projects,

which is the same as the budget request. Within the funds provided, $400,000 is provided for construction of engineering building

at U.S. Coast Guard Station Portsmouth Harbor in New Castle,

New Hampshire.

Rebuild ISC Seattle Pier 36—Phase I.—The Committee recommendation includes an additional $16,000,000 for costs associated with repairing and rebuilding the Coast Guard’s Integrated

37

Support Center at Pier 36 in Seattle. Now that a decision has been

made not to move the Integrated Support Center to an alternative

site, the Committee believes it is time to move out rapidly to replace the aging infrastructure at pier 36 and give the Coast Guard

personnel that work there a safe and appropriate working environment. With the funds provided for this initiative in this bill and in

prior Appropriations Acts including the Supplemental Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2002, there is now adequate funding to

fully cover the cost of design and construction of major elements of

this project. The Committee directs the Commandant to submit an

anticipated spend plan and construction schedule for this initiative

prior to conference committee action on this bill.

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.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION

Appropriations, 2002 1 ........................................................................... $16,927,000

Budget estimate, 2003 2 ......................................................................... 17,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 17,000,000

1 Excludes reduction of $9,000 pursuant to Public Laws 107–87 and 107–117. 2 Excludes $218,000 in civilian and $68,000 in military accruals.

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. The recommended bill provides $17,000,000 for environmental

compliance and restoration. The recommendation is the same as

the budget request.

ALTERATION OF BRIDGES

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $15,466,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... ...........................

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 14,000,000

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

38

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 $14,000,000 for the alteration of bridges, which is the

same as the budget request.

The Committee recommendation is to be distributed as follows:

Committee

Bridge and Location recommendation

Chelsea Street Bridge Project, Boston, MA ......................................... $2,000,000.00

EJ&E Railroad Bridge, Morris, IL ....................................................... 1,000,000.00

Fourteen Mile CSX Railroad Bridge, Mobile, AL ................................ 5,000,000.00

John F. Limehouse Bridge, Charleston, SC ........................................ 1,500,000.00

Florida Avenue Bridge, New Orleans, LA ........................................... 4,500,000.00

Total ................................................................................................. 14,000,000.00

EJ&E Bridge.—The Committee is concerned about the alteration

of the EJ&E railroad bridge near Morris, Illinois. To date, the

Committee has provided more than $6,500,000 for this important

bridge project in fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002. It is the Committee’s understanding that design and engineering work has been

completed. The Committee provides $1,000,000 for this bridge

project and directs the Coast Guard to initiate construction on this

project.

RETIRED PAY

Appropriations, 2002 (mandatory) ....................................................... $876,346,000

Budget estimate, 2003 (mandatory) ..................................................... ...........................

Committee recommendation (mandatory) ........................................... 889,000,000

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.

COAST GUARD MILITARY RETIREMENT FUND

Appropriations, 2002 (mandatory) ....................................................... ...........................

Budget estimate, 2003 (mandatory) ..................................................... $889,000,000

Committee recommendation (mandatory) ........................................... ...........................

The Administration proposed legislation in October 2001, to accrue fully the retirement costs of Coast Guard military personnel

(as well as the Public Health Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric administration Commissioned Corps). The account will

make payments to current retirees, receive the accrual payments

from Coast Guard accounts for current active duty members, and

39

receive a payment for unfunded liabilities of Coast Guard personnel.

The program also provides for retired pay of military personnel

of the Coast Guard Reserve, members of the former Lighthouse

Service, and for annuities payable to the beneficiaries of retired

military personnel under the retired Serviceman’s family protection

plan (10 U.S.C. 1431–46) and the survivor benefit plans (10 U.S.C.

1447–55); payments for career status bonuses under the National

Defense Authorization Act; and payments for medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act (10 U.S.C., ch. 55).

As discussed earlier in this report, the Committee has not appropriated funds based on the administration’s proposed legislation as

no action has been taken to enact this proposal by the Committee

of jurisdiction.

RESERVE TRAINING

Appropriations, 2002 1 ........................................................................... $83,194,000

Budget estimate, 2003 2 ......................................................................... 86,522,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 86,522,000

1 Excludes reduction of $41,000 pursuant Public Laws 107–87 and 107–117. 2 Excludes $303,000 civilian and $26,000,000 military accruals.

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 deployable port security units associated with the international Defense Operations mission.

The recommended bill includes $86,522,000 for reserve training,

which is the budget request.

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

General Trust Total

Appropriations, 2002 1 ............................................................................... $16,730,000 $3,492,000 $20,222,000

Budget estimate, 2003 2 ............................................................................ 19,606,000 3,500,000 22,000,000

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... ........................ ........................ 22,000,000

1 Excludes reduction of $6,000 pursuant to Public Laws 107–87 and 107–117. 2 Excludes $328,000 and $778,000 military accurals.

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 $22,000,000 for

research and development projects, which is with the budget request. Of this amount $3,500,000 is to be derived from the oil spill

40

liability trust fund. This recommendation is consistent with the

budget request.

Engineered Wood Composites Technology.—The Committee is

aware of engineered wood composites technology developed by the

University of Maine. Engineered Wood Composites are designed to

reduce maintenance cost and extend the useful life of waterfront

structures. A total of $3,000,000 is provided within the funds made

available to support the continued development, demonstration and

evaluation of engineered wood composites at Coast Guard facilities

including the U.S. Coast Guard Stations in Jonesport and Southwest Harbor ME.

Spectral Imaging Technology.—Within the funds provided, $2,500,000 is included for a pilot project to test automatic Search

and Rescue Spectral Imaging technology for Coast Guard C–130 at

Kalaeloa, Hawaii

Maritime Domain Awareness Information.—The Committee is

aware of the need to improve maritime domain awareness and encourages the Coast Guard to investigate designing and installing a

Maritime Domain Awareness Surveillance System demonstration

project in an effort to improve port security.

Meteorological and Marine Observation Systems.—Within the

funds provided, $250,000 is included for a prototype observation

system in the Lower Chesapeake Bay. The Committee believes that

such a system will improve short-and long-term predictions of phenomenon facilitating safe and efficient maritime operations.

BOAT SAFETY

(AQUATIC RESOURCES TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2002 (mandatory) ....................................................... $64,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 (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

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 2003.

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

41

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.

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2003 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

2003 amounts to $13,586,225,000, $4,000,000 more than the President’s budget request. The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations:

[In thousands of dollars]

Program

Fiscal year— Committee recommendation 2002 enacted 1 2003 budget

estimate

Operations ............................................................................................ 6,893,567 7,077,203 7,081,203

General fund appropriation ........................................................ 1,112,481 3,277,925 3,281,925

Trust fund appropriation ............................................................ 5,773,519 3,799,278 3,799,278

Aviation user fees ....................................................................... 7,567 .......................... ..........................

Facilities and equipment ..................................................................... 2,914,000 2,981,022 2,981,022

Research, engineering, and development ........................................... 195,000 124,000 124,000

Grants-in-Aid for Airports .................................................................... 3,300,000 3,400,000 3,400,000

Total available budget resources ........................................... 13,302,567 13,582,225 13,586,225

1 Does not reflect rescissions and reductions pursuant to Public Law 107–87 and 107–117, nor supplemental appropriations pursuant to

Public Law 107–117. 2 Excludes CSRS/FEHB accurals.

OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2002 1 ........................................................................... $6,886,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 7,077,203,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 7,081,203,000

1Does not reflect TASC reductions of $2,820,000 pursuant to Public Law 107–87 and Public

Law 107–117, nor supplemental appropriations of $200,000,000 pursuant to Public Law 107–

117 or $7,567,000 in aviation user fees. 2 Excludes CSRS/FEHB accruals.

42

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 $3,799,278,000 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:

[In thousands of dollars]

2002 program level 1 2003 budget

estimate 2

Committee

recommendations

Air traffic services ................................................................. 5,446,872 5,697,537 5,696,037

Aviation regulation and certification ..................................... 767,649 833,967 839,467

Civil aviation security ............................................................ 149,605 ................................ ..............................

Research and acquisitions .................................................... 195,559 207,600 207,600

Commercial space transportation ......................................... 12,416 12,325 12,325

Regional coordination ............................................................ 85,735 82,192 82,192

Human resources ................................................................... 69,282 80,260 80,260

Financial services .................................................................. 50,178 48,782 48,782

Staff offices ........................................................................... 108,704 84,890 84,890

Information Services .............................................................. .............................. 29,650 29,650

Total .......................................................................... 6,886,000 7,077,203 7,081,203

1 Does not reflect TASC reductions of $2,820,000 pursuant to Public Law 107–87 and Public Law 107–117, nor supplemental appropriations

of $200,000,000 pursuant to Public Law 107–117. 2 Excludes CSRS/FEHB accruals.

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

Committee’s recommendation includes $78,000,000 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, the

Committee has provided $6,000,000 for the contract tower costsharing program.

Medallion Program.—The Committee recommendation includes

$1,500,000 to continue support for this Government and industry

cooperative program to improve rural air safety in Alaska. The Medallion program has been overwhelmed with applications, and this

funding will allow an expansion of the program beyond its original

operating plan.

Alien Species Action Plan (ASAP).—The Committee provides

$3,000,000 out of available funds to continue the implementation

of the Alien Species Action Plan which was adopted by the FAA as

part of its August 26, 1998 Record of Decision approving certain

improvements at Kahului Airport on the Island of Maui. These

funds will be used to complete capital projects that were started in

fiscal year 2002 and continue the operational requirements imposed by the ASAP.

43

Personnel Reform.—In the Conference Report on the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations for 2002, the Conferees

directed the Administrator to report to the House and Senate Committees on how the agency had implemented and/or it plans to implement a Senate directive regarding personnel reform.

The Senate directive referred to Senate Report 107–38, Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations for

2002, that expressed the Committee’s concern over the failure of

the agency to implement a ratified agreement with the American

Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and instructed the agency to implement the ratified agreement immediately.

Both the Committee and the Conferees expected that the personnel reform directive would be followed so that the agency could

achieve the improved productivity gains negotiated by the agency.

Since the agency was unresponsive to the Senate directive and continued to obstruct implementation of the agreement, the Committee expects the Administrator to immediately implement the

ratified agreement and instructs the agency to do so.

National airspace redesign.—Of the funds provided for the activ- ity, $8,500,000 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. As

the FAA moves forward with its redesign program in the New

York/New Jersey and Philadelphia area, the Committee encourages

the FAA, where appropriate, to consider air noise impacts as part

of the redesign effort.

Spaceport licensing procedures.—The Committee is aware that

the State of Oklahoma has a variety of locations that are ideal for

orbital launches dues to low population density and existing infrastructure. As such, the State of Oklahoma has been working to develop a spaceport. The Committee strongly encourages the FAA Administrator to provide the necessary technical assistance and financial resources to assist with the licensing procedures for this potential spaceport.

Non-precision GPS approaches.—The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to continue with the work associated with

increasing the number of non-precision GPS instrument approaches

developed and published for airports that are not Part 139 certificated. Of these funds, $1,500,000 is only for the Office of Regulation and Certification (AVR) to develop advisory materials and policy guidelines for the general aviation community.

Inspector technical training.—In March, 2002, the FAA released

the results of a study which evaluated the commercial airplane certification process. One of the major findings of the study is that the

FAA, airlines and aircraft manufacturers have not adequately communicated important safety information within and among their

organizations. The study also concluded that proper training and

adequate hands-on experience are essential to ensure that safety

inspectors identify potential safety hazards. The Committee has

provided $4,000,000 more than the President’s request to provide

additional technical training for FAA’s aviation safety inspectors as

the agency moves forward with the implementation of its Operational Evolution Plan (OEP). Specifically, the additional funding

44

will provide necessary training for inspectors in order to properly

certify pilots and aircraft in the Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums. The Committee also encourages the FAA to develop a plan

to improve the coordination and communication process between

the FAA’s flight standards and aircraft certification offices.

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2002 1 ........................................................................... $2,914,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 2,981,022,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 2,981,022,000

1Does not reflect $108,500,000 of supplemental appropriations pursuant to Public Law 107–

117 or rescission of $15,000,000 of unobligated balances pursuant to Public Law 107–87. 2 Excludes CSRS/FEHB accruals.

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 Administration’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 $41,901,000,000 on the Air Traffic

Control Modernization effort from 1981 through 2004. The bill includes an appropriation of $2,981,022,000 for the facilities and equipment of the Federal Aviation 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 2002

enacted

Fiscal year 2003

estimate

Committee recommendation

Activity 1, Improve Aviation Safety:

Reduce Commercial Aviation Fatalities:

Terminal Business Unit ..................................................... $160,355,000 $141,000,000 $161,300,000

Aviation Weather Services Improvements .......................... 22,520,000 23,440,000 23,440,000

Low Level Windshear Alert System (LLWAS)—Upgrade .... 1,533,000 1,600,000 1,600,000

Aviation Safety Analysis System (ASAS) ............................ 22,100,000 21,700,000 21,700,000

Integrated Flight Quality Assurance .................................. 2,000,000 500,000 500,000

Safety Performance Analysis System (SPAS) ..................... 2,100,000 2,100,000 2,100,000

Performance Enhancement Systems (PENS) ..................... 2,500,000 2,600,000 2,600,000

Aviation Weather Services Improvements (CWIS) .............. 5,000,000 .......................... ..........................

Reduce General Aviation Fatalities: Safe Flight 21 ................... 39,300,000 29,800,000 32,800,000

Other Aviation Safety Programs:

Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping ........ 55,991,000 41,100,000 41,600,000

Aircraft Related Equipment Program ................................ 7,500,000 16,000,000 16,000,000

National Aviation Safety Data Analysis Center

(NASDAC) ....................................................................... 1,800,000 2,000,000 2,000,000

Explosive Detection Technology ......................................... 97,500,000 121,500,000 55,000,000

Aircraft Fleet Modernization ............................................... 1,500,000 .......................... ..........................

Volcano Monitoring ............................................................ 2,000,000 .......................... 3,000,000

Total, Activity 1 ............................................................. 423,699,000 403,340,000 363,640,000

Activity 2, Improve the Efficiency of the Air Traffic Control System:

Increase the Number of Flights Handled by Airports:

Terminal Business Unit ..................................................... 490,518,059 551,035,496 534,601,496

Aeronautical Data Link (ADL) Applications ....................... 38,113,200 33,200,000 29,700,000

Free Flight Phase 2 ........................................................... 69,900,000 106,200,000 96,200,000

45

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued

Program name Fiscal year 2002

enacted

Fiscal year 2003

estimate

Committee recommendation

Air Traffic Management (ATM) .......................................... 49,300,000 13,000,000 13,000,000

Free Flight Phase 1 ........................................................... 122,570,000 39,900,000 39,900,000

Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) .................. 13,280,000 12,100,000 12,100,000

Improve Routing Efficiency for Flights En Route:

Next Generation VHF Air/Ground Communications System

(NEXCOM) ...................................................................... 34,950,000 71,100,000 71,100,000

En Route Automation Program .......................................... 46,200,000 71,050,000 75,250,000

Weather and Radar Processor (WARP) .............................. 24,171,000 13,600,000 13,600,000

Long Range Radar Sustainment ....................................... .......................... .......................... 7,500,000

Improve Overall NAS Efficiency:

Air Traffic Operations Management System (ATOMS) ....... 1,000,000 1,100,000 1,100,000

NAS Management Automation Program (NASMAP) ........... 1,100,000 1,900,000 1,900,000

Total, Activity 2 ............................................................. 891,102,259 914,185,496 895,951,496

Activity 3, Increase Capacity of the NAS:

Increase Capability of En Route Systems to Handle Flights:

Navigation and Landing Aids ............................................ 272,589,200 249,800,000 295,735,000

Oceanic Automation System .............................................. 88,100,000 87,400,000 76,349,000

Gulf of Mexico Offshore Program ...................................... 6,900,000 2,300,000 2,300,000

Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS) .................... 16,000,000 14,000,000 14,000,000

Transponder Landing System ............................................ 6,000,000 .......................... 12,000,000

Total, Activity 3 ............................................................. 389,589,200 353,500,000 400,384,000

Activity 4, Improve Reliability of the NAS:

Replace Terminal Equipment to Prevent Decreased Performance:

Guam CERAP—Relocate .................................................... 6,400,000 5,000,000 5,000,000

Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR)/Enhanced

Terminal Voice Switch ................................................... 20,000,000 6,200,000 17,200,000

Airport Cable Loop Systems—Sustained Support ............. 4,000,000 4,000,000 5,500,000

Replace En Route Equipment to Prevent Decreased Performance:

En Route Automation Program .......................................... 155,863,000 142,800,000 147,500,000

ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements ......... 44,000,000 40,200,000 40,200,000

Air Traffic Management (ATM) .......................................... 24,500,000 24,500,000 24,500,000

Replace Supporting Systems that Impact Overall NAS Performance:

Critical Telecommunications Support ................................ 1,900,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI) .................... 39,000,000 46,600,000 46,600,000

Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure ....................... 30,700,000 22,800,000 22,800,000

Voice Recorder Replacement Program (VRRP) .................. 6,000,000 3,300,000 3,300,000

NAS Infrastructure Management System (NIMS) ............... 16,000,000 29,100,000 29,100,000

Flight Service Station (FSS) Modernization ....................... 4,700,000 5,700,000 5,700,000

FSAS Operational and Supportability Implementation

System (OASIS) .............................................................. 33,943,000 19,710,000 19,710,000

Weather Message Switching Center Replacement

(WMSCR) ........................................................................ 2,500,000 2,000,000 2,000,000

Flight Service Station Switch Modernization ..................... 10,000,000 13,200,000 13,200,000

Alaskan NAS Interfacility Communications System

(ANICS) .......................................................................... 4,000,000 2,900,000 4,000,000

Electrical Power Systems—Sustain/Support ..................... 54,200,000 50,700,000 50,700,000

NAS Recovery Communications (RCOM) ............................ 4,800,000 9,400,000 9,400,000

Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Modernization ............. 12,000,000 11,700,000 11,700,000

Frequency and Spectrum Engineering ............................... 3,000,000 2,600,000 2,600,000

Total, Activity 4 ............................................................. 453,006,000 443,410,000 461,710,000

Activity 5, Improve the Efficiency of Mission Support:

Increase Efficiency of Investment Management:

NAS Improvement of System Support Laboratory .............. 2,300,000 2,700,000 2,700,000

Technical Center Facilities ................................................ 10,250,000 12,000,000 12,000,000

46

FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT—Continued

Program name Fiscal year 2002

enacted

Fiscal year 2003

estimate

Committee recommendation

William J. Hughes Technical Center Infrastructure

Sustainment .................................................................. 2,900,000 3,000,000 3,000,000

En Route Communications and Control Facilities Improvements .................................................................... 1,540,280 1,057,953 1,307,953

DOD/FAA Facilities Transfer ............................................... 2,800,000 1,200,000 3,200,000

Terminal Communications—Improve ................................ 936,700 1,249,299 1,249,299

Flight Service Facilities Improvement ............................... 1,202,100 1,223,235 1,223,235

Navigation and Landing Aids—Improve ........................... 2,525,361 5,034,017 5,034,017

FAA Buildings and Equipment ........................................... 11,700,000 11,000,000 11,000,000

Air Navigational Aids and ATC Facilities (Local Projects) ............................................................................... 2,000,000 2,100,000 2,100,000

Computer Aided Engineering and Graphics (CAEG) Modernization ....................................................................... 2,600,000 2,800,000 2,800,000

Information Technology Integration ................................... 1,500,000 1,600,000 1,600,000

Operational Data Management System (ODMS) ................ 3,000,000 10,300,000 10,300,000

Logistics Support Systems and Facilities (LSSF) .............. 5,000,000 9,300,000 5,000,000

Test Equipment—Maintenance Support for Replacement .............................................................................. 900,000 1,700,000 1,700,000

Facility Security Risk Management ................................... 22,400,000 37,300,000 37,300,000

Information Security ........................................................... 13,600,000 13,291,000 13,291,000

Distance Learning .............................................................. 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000

National Airspace System (NAS) Training Facilities ......... .......................... 2,300,000 2,300,000

System Engineering and Development Support ................ 26,300,000 25,800,000 25,800,000

Program Support Leases .................................................... 35,500,000 38,400,000 38,400,000

Logistics Support Services (LSS) ....................................... 7,200,000 7,500,000 7,500,000

Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center—Leases ................... 14,600,000 14,600,000 14,600,000

In-Plant NAS Contract Support Services ........................... 2,800,000 2,900,000 2,900,000

Transition Engineering Support ......................................... 38,300,000 39,000,000 37,000,000

FAA Corporate Systems Architecture ................................. 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

Technical Support Services Contract (TSSC) ..................... 45,800,000 46,700,000 44,700,000

Resource Tracking Program (RTP) ..................................... 4,000,000 3,700,000 2,500,000

Center for Advanced Aviation System Development ......... 81,543,000 81,364,000 81,364,000

Operational Evolution Plan (OEP) ...................................... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

Minimize Environmental Impact of Aviation Facilities:

NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental Standards Compliance ........................................................................... 28,400,000 32,600,000 32,600,000

Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Monitoring .............. 9,300,000 8,500,000 8,500,000

Hazardous Materials Management .................................... 21,700,000 20,500,000 20,500,000

Total, Activity 5 ............................................................. 404,897,441 444,019,504 436,769,504

Activity 6, Personnel Compensation, Benefits and Travel:

Personnel and Related Expenses ................................................ 377,100,000 422,567,000 422,567,000

Account-wide adjustment ........................................................... ¥25,393,900 .......................... ..........................

Total, All Activities ................................................................. 2,914,000,000 2,981,022,000 2,981,022,000

IMPROVE AVIATION SAFETY

Safety and Security Activities.—The Committee recommends

$6,000,000 for additional aviation safety and security activities

within FAA’s terminal business unit in activity one. Within the

funds provided, the Committee provides $500,000 for specialized

training to fight and prevent aircraft fires at the Rocky Mountain

Emergency Services Training Center; $500,000 for aviation security

systems upgrades at Daniel Webster College; and, $5,000,000 to an

aviation security and science center at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical

University.

Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping.—The Committee provides $41,600,000 for the advanced development and

47

prototyping program which is $500,000 more than the President’s

budget request. The Committee is aware of a potentially cost effective technology called the Runway Obstruction Warning System

(ROWS). The Committee has included $500,000 to further test and

develop this technology at the Gulfport-Biloxi Airport. Also included within the funds provided is $2,000,000 for the airfield improvement program authorized under section 905 of Public Law

106–181. The recommended funding level includes $5,500,000 to

continue the wind profiling and weather research activities at Juneau, Alaska.

Explosives Detection Technology.—The administration’s budget

for FAA ‘‘Facilities and Equipment’’ includes $124,000,000 for Explosives Detection Technology of which $2,500,000 is for personnel

and support costs. Funds for Explosive Detection Technology were

provided in fiscal year 2002 under both the Department of Transportation and Department of Defense Appropriations bills. Requested funds for fiscal year 2003 will be used for the deployment

of FAA certified Explosive Detection Systems as well as Threat

Image Projection Systems, Explosive Trace Detection Devices and

Computer-Based Training Platforms. Though this funding has been

requested within the FAA budget, the administration’s budget request assumes that these funds will be transferred to the Transportation Security Administration. The Committee has fully funded

this activity through a combination of $55,000,000 made available

in the Facilities and Equipment appropriation and $69,000,000 in

transfer funds from other capital accounts in the bill (Sec. 351). Together, the $124,000,000 is transferred in the bill to the Transportation Security Administration.

Safe Flight 21.—The Committee recommends $32,800,000 for

Safe Flight 21, which is $3,000,000 more than the budget request.

The Committee is encouraged by the success of the Capstone initiative and has provided additional funding to accelerate deployment

of the Capstone infrastructure in Southeastern Alaska. The Committee continues to believe that Safe Flight 21 technologies show

promise of reducing runway incursions. As the program proceeds,

attention should be given to how this program could promote safer

ground traffic at airports and how ADS–B and other technologies

could be used to address the runway incursion problem.

Volcano Monitor.—The Committee recommendation provides

$3,000,000 to extend the aviation safety benefits of the seismic

monitoring network to remote areas.

Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE–X).—The Committee

provides $104,600,000 for the Airport Surface Detection Equipment

(ASDE–X) program. The amount provided is $14,300,000 more

than the administration’s request. The ASDE–X program will improve runway safety and prevent runway incursion accidents by

improving airport controller situational awareness. This is achieved

by providing visual representation of the traffic situation on the

airport surface to the controller in the form of aircraft position information, flight call signs, and by alerting controllers through

aural and visual alarms that a potential accident may occur. The

amount provided above the administration’s request will fund the

development of new multi-lateration capability for deployment at

the following high volume ASDE–3 sites: Memphis, Tennessee;

48

Louisville, Kentucky; St. Louis, Missouri; Dallas, Texas; Chicago,

Illinois; Los Angeles, California; and Atlanta, Georgia.

IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM

New York Integrated Control Complex.—The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 to plan and develop a facility

needed to integrate the New York Air Traffic Control Center and

TRACON, which are currently located 20 miles apart in outdated

facilities. This integration is critical because the New York-New

Jersey airspace, the most congested in the United States, is currently inefficiently managed due to the fact that controllers in separate locations must communicate by telephone under extremely

trying circumstances. As a result, the controllers must be extremely cautious when moving planes in and out of the airspace.

The result is often costly and exorbitant delays, which in turn generate potential safety vulnerabilities.

Aeronautical Information and Flight Planning Enhancements

(AIFPE).—Within the En Route Automation Program, the Com- mittee has provided an additional $4,200,000 for Aeronautical Information and Flight Planning Enhancements. This additional

funding will provide for new development of hand-off capability between Canada, the United States and Mexico. At present, this procedure is currently done manually. The Committee believes that

automating this process will enhance both the safety and efficiency

of controlled aircraft within North America.

Automated surface observing system.—The Committee’s recommendation includes $12,100,000 for the automated surface observing system program as requested in the President’s budget. Within the funds provided, the Committee includes $500,000 to implement an automated weather sensor system at the Driggs-Reed

Memorial Airport in Idaho Falls, ID.

Long Range Radar Sustainment (LRRS).—The Committee has

provided $7,500,000 for Long Range Radar Sustainment. The

amount provided is the same as that provided in the recently enacted Supplemental Appropriations bill of fiscal year 2002. Together these funds will provide for a $15,000,000 sustainment program for the ARSR–4 radar systems located on the perimeter of the

United States. While these radars were scheduled to be decommissioned prior to the events of September 11th, it is now apparent

both to the FAA and Department of Defense that these aging radars must remain in operation.

Free flight phase two.—The Committee recommendation includes

$96,200,000 for Free Flight Phase II activities. The recommendation is $26,300,000 more than the fiscal year 2002 enacted level

and $10,000,000 less than the budget estimate. Within the available funds, the Committee has provided full funding for the User

Request Evaluation Tool (URET).

Aeronautical Data Link (ADL) Applications.—The Committee has

reduced the budget request for Aeronautical Data Link Applications to $29,700,000 which is $3,500,000 lower than the budget request. The Aeronautical Data Link program is designed to provide

data link applications between ground and airborne automation

systems. This program is designed to reduce voice congestion as

well as grant pilots direct access to weather and air traffic control

49

information while reducing voice communication errors. Recently

FAA officials have encountered technical software development

challenges in certifying the en route controller/pilot data link

(CPDLC) system. As such, the FAA has postponed the deployment

of the CPDLC system by roughly 2 years. The funds reduced from

the budget request include $2,000,000 from the CPDLC Build II

project; $500,000 from the Flight Information Service Data Link

program; and, $1,000,000 from the CPDLC Decision Support System Services.

Airport surveillance radar (ASR–11).—The Committee has provided $90,000,000 for the Airport Surveillance Radar (ASR–11) program. The amount provided is $33,400,000 less than the budget request. The new ASR–11 radar is expected to provide digital radar

data necessary to interface with new automation systems, such as

the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS).

The FAA expects to procure this radar as part of a larger contract

vehicle managed by the United States Air Force. Due to concerns

over delivery delays and the performance of this radar, the FAA ordered that the ASR–11 vendor provide its final system for the development, test, and evaluation phase at the end of calendar year

2001. That date was then slipped until March of 2002. The FAA

and the Air Force have been conducting such testing individually.

It appears that certain problems with the radar’s performance may

persist, including the appearance of false targets on the radar

screen in numbers that exceed the agency’s specification. The FAA,

like the Air Force, is now bringing the radar into operational testing to determine whether these and other problems can be resolved

in the operational environment. The Committee will monitor the

progress of this program carefully. Given the testing delays already

encountered and the uncertainty that surrounds the next round of

testing, the Committee has reduced funding for the program below

the requested level.

Radar at Gallatin Airport.—The Committee is concerned about

potential safety risks associated with the lack of radar coverage at

Gallatin Airport, Montana, an airport whose enplanements and operations are growing. The Committee directs the administrator to

conduct a site survey for the installation of the appropriate radar

at the airport.

Precision runway monitor (PRM).—The Committee has provided

a total of $18,000,000 for the procurement of three precision runway monitors (PRMs). This rapid update special purpose radar system enables aircraft to approach the airport in dual arrival streams

with shorter separation distances and in deteriorating weather conditions. The vendor of this technology has offered to extend the existing price of PRM units, making it possible for the FAA to

achieve substantial savings for the taxpayer through a three-unit

purchase. The Committee expects the FAA to initiate a procurement of three systems, with the expectation that systems will be

installed at Hartsfield International Airport, Detroit MetropolitanWayne County Airport, and one other site to be determined. Within

the amount provided, sufficient funds are made available for the

installation of a PRM already under contract at Cleveland Hopkins

International Airport. The Committee believes that this installation

50

will better ensure that the full capacity benefits of new runway 6L/

24R will be realized.

Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities—Replace.—The Committee recommendation provides $103,566,000 for this program.

The recommendation provides funding for the following projects:

Fiscal Year 2003 Terminal Air Traffic

Pago Pago, American Samoa ................................................................ $175,000

Baltimore, MD ....................................................................................... 2,088,581

Chantilly, VA ......................................................................................... 600,000

Deer Valley, AZ ...................................................................................... 803,196

Memphis, TN .......................................................................................... 1,147,000

Portland, OR (TRACON) ....................................................................... 5,500,000

Dallas, TX (Addison) .............................................................................. 5,700,000

Reno, NV ................................................................................................ 8,349,000

Fort Wayne, IN ...................................................................................... 3,539,000

Newport News, VA ................................................................................ 6,400,000

La Guardia, NY ..................................................................................... 9,460,000

St. Louis, MO (TRACON) ...................................................................... 1,500,000

Corpus Christi, TX ................................................................................. 700,000

Beaumont, TX ........................................................................................ 1,000,000

Seattle, WA (ATCT) ............................................................................... 550,000

Salina, KS ............................................................................................... 500,000

Newark, NJ ............................................................................................ 3,000,000

Pt. Columbus, OH .................................................................................. 2,100,000

Grand Canyon, AZ ................................................................................. 255,898

Savannah, GA ........................................................................................ 919,190

Newburgh, NY ....................................................................................... 2,065,000

Richmond, VA ........................................................................................ 550,000

Vero Beach, FL ...................................................................................... 878,775

Everett, WA ............................................................................................ 925,000

Roanoke, VA ........................................................................................... 550,000

Merrimack, NH (BCT) ........................................................................... 4,700,000

Seattle, WA (TRACON) ......................................................................... 4,782,701

Phoenix, AZ ............................................................................................ 14,107,919

Manchester, NH ..................................................................................... 943,609

Wilkes Barre, PA ................................................................................... 2,000,000

Topeka, KS ............................................................................................. 1,690,131

Billings, MT ............................................................................................ 2,120,000

Missoula, MT .......................................................................................... 2,000,000

Provo, UT ............................................................................................... 666,000

Albuquerque, NM .................................................................................. 1,800,000

Columbus, MS ........................................................................................ 1,500,000

Las Vegas, NV ........................................................................................ 3,000,000

Columbia, SC ......................................................................................... 1,000,000

Reno, NV (TRACON) ............................................................................. 4,000,000

Total ................................................................................................. 103,566,000

Oakland Tower Replacement.—The Committee has reduced the

request for Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities Replacement by

$19,000,000. This reduction is attributable to the deletion of funding for the replacement of the air traffic control tower at Oakland,

California. Based on the FAA’s newly updated contracting schedule, the agency will not be able to contract for this tower within

fiscal year 2003.

Notams Graphics.—The Committee directs the FAA to expand

the use of graphics to not only flight service stations by also to provide pilots with advisory graphics of information contained in the

NOTAMs including temporary flight restrictions. It is important

that graphics on Special Use Airspace also be made available, and

the Committee believes that advisory graphics can be conveyed

51

through the Direct User Access Terminal System and other

sources, including the internet.

INCREASE CAPACITY OF THE NAS

Navigation and landing aids.—The Committee provides a total of $307,735,000 to modernize the FAA’s navigation and landing aids systems which is $57,935,000 more than the President’s budget request. Within the funds provided, the Committee includes

$1,500,000 for navigation aids and equipment at the Nikolski Airport; $4,000,000 for navigation and landing improvements at the

Cincinnati Northern Kentucky International Airport; $4,000,000 for

navigation and landing improvements for Lambert-St. Louis International Airport; and, $800,000 for remote transmitter receivers at

Las Vegas-McCarran International Airport.

Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS).—The Committee continues to be concerned about the diminishing return on investment

expected from the deployment of the Wide Area Augmentation System as well as the accuracy of the FAA’s budget for this program

during consideration of the fiscal year 2002 Appropriations bill.

The administrator submitted a special request for funding to obtain

a third geo-stationary satellite to support the WAAS signal. The

Committee funded this special request but the FAA has now informed the Committee that the initiative, as so many others within

the WAAS program, will be delayed. The FAA has now decided to

execute a competitive contract for this satellite communications

service. This has resulted in a diminished requirement for funds in

fiscal year 2003. As a result, the Committee has lowered funding

for the WAAS program to $98,900,000, a reduction of $11,600,000

from the budget request.

Loran-C Upgrade/Modernization.—Within the funds provided for navigation and landing aids, the Committee includes $21,000,000

for Loran-C upgrades and modernizations.

Instrument Landing System (ILS)—Establish/upgrade.—The

Committee recommendation provides $36,180,000 and directs the

increase above the budget request to be distributed as follows:

Mena Intermountain Municipal Airport, AR ....................................... $580,000.00

Winder-Barrow Airport, GA .................................................................. 4,000,000.00

Olive Branch Airport, MS ..................................................................... 600,000.00

Reno-Stead Airport, NV ........................................................................ 1,500,000.00

Pangborn Memorial Airport, WA ......................................................... 1,500,000.00

Wasilla Airport, AK ............................................................................... 1,000,000.00

Stuttgart Municipal Airport, AR .......................................................... 2,000,000.00

Talladega Municipal Airport, AL ......................................................... 1,500,000.00

Transponder Landing System (TLS).—The Committee recommendation provides $12,000,000 an increase of $6,000,000 over

the fiscal year 2002 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:

Driggs-Reed Memorial and Sandpoint, ID ........................................... $4,000,000.00

William H. Morse Airport, Bennington VT ......................................... 2,000,000.00

Elko and Minden-Tahoe Airports, NV ................................................. 4,000,000.00

La Grand/Union County Airport, OR ................................................... 2,000,000.00

Approach Lighting System Improvement (ALSIP).—The Committee recommendation provides $29,755,000 for the procurement

52

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:

Auburn-Opelika R.G. Pitts Airport, AL (MALSR) .............................. $1,500,000.00

Reno/Tahoe International Airport, NV (MALSR) ............................... 2,400,000.00

Baton Rouge Municipal Airport, LA (MALSR) .................................... 750,000.00

Cleveland Hopkins Int’l, Runway 24L (MALSR) ................................ 400,000.00

Alaska statewide rural airport lighting ............................................... 11,000,000.00

North Little Rock Municipal, AR (MALSR) ......................................... 450,000.00

In addition, the Committee provides $6,000,000 to reduce the

backlog of MALSR systems that are awaiting installation and

$4,000,000 to procure additional systems.

Advanced technology and oceanic procedures.—The Committee

has been supportive of the need to improve the capability of air

traffic services over the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and has been

concerned about delays and difficulties the FAA has experienced in

the past with the Advanced Technologies and Oceanic Procedures

(ATOP) procurement. Although considered a non-developmental acquisition, it was determined after the contract was awarded in

June, 2001, that the amount of essential software to be developed

and tested was severely underestimated. Due to the additional

complexity, delays in software development continue to plague the

procurement, and the factory-level acceptance testing which was

scheduled to be completed in September, 2002, is slipping. The

Committee urges the FAA to aggressively manage this procurement and deletes $11,051,000 in anticipation of the cascading effect

software development problems will have on the delivery of the

first system.

IMPROVE RELIABILITY OF THE NAS

Airport cable loop systems.—The Committee recommendation

provides $5,500,000 to continue FAA’s efforts to upgrade and replace deteriorated cable of the surveillance and landing communications systems within the National Airspace System. Within the

request provided is $1,500,000 for a fiber optic loop around Las

Vegas-McCarran International Airport.

Flight service station switch modernization.—The Committee has

included $13,200,000 for the flight service station switch modernization program as requested in the budget request. This modernization program will replace 65 voice switching systems at Automated Flight Service Stations and provide eight small tower voice

switches for the non-automated Flight Service Stations in the Alaskan region. The Committee believes it would be prudent for the

FAA to deploy the switches consistent with its OASIS implementation plan. At the same time, the Committee cautions FAA not to

use this direction as a reason to delay the implementation of the

OASIS system.

Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR)/Enhanced Terminal

Voice Switch (ETVS).—The Committee provides $17,200,000 for the

Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR) program. This modernization program is designed to replace 421 electro-mechanical

and non-supportable electronic voice pitching systems. The amount

provide over the budget request will be used for the following acVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:06 Aug 01, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX pfrm11 PsN: SR224
53

tivities: $3,000,000 will be used for additional conferencing capability to improve interagency coordination during periods of security vulnerabilities which was identified by the FAA after the

events of September 11th, 2001; and, $8,000,000 will be used to increase substantially the number of ETVS/RDVS units procured in

2003.

Alaska NAS Interfacility Comm System (ANICS).—The Committee recommendation includes $4,000,000. This is $1,100,000

more than the requested level of funding and is the same level appropriated in fiscal year 2002. With this amount, sufficient funding

has been provided to begin installation at a second Phase II site

this year.

Initial Academy Training System (IANTS).—Within the En

Route Automation Program, the Committee has provided

$16,900,000 over and above the budget request for the Initial Academy Training System program (IATS). These additional funds will

provide a standardized Display System Replacement (DSR) training platform at the FAA Academy located in Oklahoma City, OK.

At present, newly hired air traffic controllers train at the academy

on outdated M–1 consoles and do not receive any training on the

standardized Display System Replacement platform until they arrive at an Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC). These additional funds will be critical to the training of what is expected to

be an increased number of new recruits to replace controllers entering retirement.

En Route Automation Program.—The Committee has reduced the

funding requested for the En Route Automation Program by

$12,200,000. This reduction is attributable to a level of unobligated

balances that continue to mount in the En Route Communications

Gateway program. Over a 3 year period between fiscal year 2000

and 2002, the Committee has appropriated $104,700,000 for the

Eunomia/ECG Program. The FAA has re-scoped this program,

which is designed to replace the Peripheral Adapter Module Replacement Item (PAMRI) equipment, to meet other critical needs as

determined by the FAA’s Air Traffic Services office. Due to the

delays associated with the rescoping of the ECG program, it is anticipated that the program will have an unobligated balance of

$12,200,000 entering fiscal year 2003. The Committee has adjusted

the fiscal year 2003 budget request to account for this unobligated

balance.

FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI).—The Committee

has provided $46,600,000 for FAA’s Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI). The amount provided is the same as the budget request.

The FTI Program is intended to improve telecommunications services within the FAA’s NAS and non-NAS infrastructures. The current incumbent provider of these services is WorldCom. Given the

recent financial troubles besetting this company, the Committee is

concerned with the company’s ability to continue to provide critical

telecommunications services for the nation’s air traffic control infrastructure. While the FAA has now awarded the new FTI contract to another vendor, WorldCom recently signed a 5-year bridge

contract to provide for a transition period between WorldCom and

the new provider. The Committee is concerned about WorldCom’s

ability to perform all elements of the 5-year bridge contract. As

54

such, the Committee directs that the administrator develop a contingency plan for the continuation of telecommunications services

in the event that WorldCom is incapable of fulfilling its contract

obligations. The Committee expects the administrator to coordinate

with the Office of the Inspector General in the development of this

contingency plan.

Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure.—Within the funds

provided for air/ground communications infrastructure, the Committee has included $3,000,000 to develop and test a prototype capability to transmit critical flight data from aircraft to ground station using currently installed data management and communications equipment.

IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF MISSION SUPPORT

DOD/FAA facilities transfer.—The Committee recommends

$3,200,000, including $2,000,000 for the Lawton/Fort Sill Regional

Airport ARAC (Airport Radar Approach Control).

En route communications and control facilities improvements.—

The Committee provides $1,307,953 for en route communications

and control facilities improvements, which is $250,000 more than

the President’s budget. Within the amount provided, the Committee includes $250,000 for a remote communications outlet at

Keokuk, IA Airport.

Asset Support Chain Management (ASCM).—The Committee has

provided $5,000,000 for the Logistics Support Systems and Facilities activity. This program will provide a single integrated planning, inventory, and asset management solution to improve the

FAA’s performance, financial, and logistics information systems.

The amount provided is $4,300,000 less than the budget request.

This reduction is attributable to the slippage in a number of programmed elements.

Transition Engineering Support.—The Committee has provided

$37,000,000 for Transition Engineering Support. This program supports the NAS Implementation Support Contract (NISC). The

amount provided is $2,000,000 less than the budget request and

the Committee believes that this slight reduction can be easily accommodated without any significant impact on the agency’s overall

NAS modernization effort.

Technical Services Support Contract (TSSC).—The Committee

has provided $44,700,000 for the Technical Services Support Contract. The amount provided is $2,000,000 less than the level in the

budget request. This adjustment is attributable to savings adjusted

by the FAA resulting from the transition from a new TSSC contract the reduction is expected to have no impact on system performance.

Resource Tracking Program (RTP).—The Committee has provided a total of $2,500,000 for the Resource Tracking Program.

This amount is $1,200,000 less than the budget request. This reduction will result in the deferral of software maintenance upgrades. However, this deferral should in no way undermine the

FAA’s ability to improve the integrity of its internal budgeting

processes.

55

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2002 1 ........................................................................... $195,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 2 ......................................................................... 124,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 124,000,000

1Does not reflect $50,000,000 of supplemental appropriations pursuant to Public Law 107–

117. 2 Excludes CSRS/FEHB accruals.

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

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.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $124,000,000, for the

FAA’s research, engineering, and development activities.

A table showing the fiscal year 2002 enacted level, the fiscal year

2003 budget estimate, and the Committee recommendation follows:

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT

Program Name Fiscal year 2002

enacted

Fiscal year 2003

estimate

Committee recommendation

Improve Aviation Safety:

Reduce Commercial Aviation Facilities:

Fire Research and Safety ........................................................ $5,242,000 $6,429,000 $6,429,000

Propulsion and Fuel Systems .................................................. 5,998,000 3,998,000 4,998,000

Advanced Materials/Structural Safety ..................................... 1,338,000 1,374,000 1,374,000

Flight Safety/Atmospheric Hazards Research .......................... 4,494,000 3,101,000 4,101,000

Aging Aircraft ........................................................................... 25,600,000 20,974,000 20,974,000

Aircraft Catastrophic Failure Prevention Research ................. 2,794,000 1,920,000 1,920,000

Flightdeck/Maint/Sysy Integration Human Factors .................. 8,003,000 8,411,000 8,411,000

Reduce General Aviation Fatalities:

Propulsion and Fuel Systems .................................................. 2,570,000 1,713,000 1,713,000

Advanced Materials/Structural Safety ..................................... 1,636,000 1,679,000 1,679,000

Flight Safety/Atmospheric Hazards Research .......................... 1,926,000 1,329,000 1,329,000

Aging Aircraft ........................................................................... 6,400,000 5,243,000 5,243,000

Flightdeck/Maint/Sysy Integration Human Factors .................. 1,903,000 2,000,000 2,000,000

Aviation System Safety:

Aviation Safety Risk Analysis .................................................. 5,784,000 6,926,000 6,926,000

ATC/AF Human Factors ............................................................ 8,500,000 10,317,000 10,317,000

Aeromedical Research .............................................................. 6,121,000 6,603,000 6,603,000

Weather Research .................................................................... 13,877,000 19,406,000 19,406,000

Improve Efficiency of Air Traffic Control System: Weather Research Efficiency .......................................................................... 9,791,000 9,099,000 12,099,000

Reduce Environmental Impacts of Aviation: Environment and Energy ............................................................................................... 22,081,000 7,698,000 2,698,000

Improve Efficiency of Mission:

System Planning and Resource Management .................................. 1,200,000 1,459,000 1,459,000

Technical Laboratory Facilities ......................................................... 12,250,000 6,455,000 6,455,000

Strategic Partnership ........................................................................ 400,000 610,000 610,000

System Security Technology:

Explosives and Weapons Detection .................................................. 32,624,000 ........................ ........................

Airport Security Technology Integration ............................................ 2,084,000 ........................ ........................

56

RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT—Continued

Program Name Fiscal year 2002

enacted

Fiscal year 2003

estimate

Committee recommendation

Aviation Security Human Factors ..................................................... 5,163,000 ........................ ........................

Aircraft Hardening ............................................................................ 4,640,000 ........................ ........................

Information System Security ............................................................. 2,581,000 ........................ ........................

Accountwide adjustment: CSRS/FEHB accruals ........................................ ........................ ¥2,744,000 ¥2,744,000

Total Appropriation ....................................................................... 195,000,000 124,000,000 124,000,000

IMPROVE AVIATION SAFETY

Propulsion and fuel systems.—The Committee recommendation

provides a total of $6,711,000 for propulsion and fuel systems research to reduce commercial and general aviation fatalities. Within

the funds provided, the Committee includes $1,000,000 to continue

the activities of the specialty metals processing consortium and

$1,000,000 for additional research into the performance and combustion characteristics of aviation grade ethanol fuels.

Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research.—The Committee recommendation includes a total of $5,430,000, including $3,000,000

for flight safety/atmospheric hazards research to continue the development of in-flight simulator training for civilian and commercial pilots at the Roswell Industrial Center.

Aging aircraft.—The Committee recommendation includes a total

of $26,217,000 for the aging aircraft program to reduce commercial

and general aviation fatalities. The Committee has provided resources to continue the collaborative efforts between the FAA and

several public and private organizations including the Center for

Aviation Systems Reliability (CASR), the Airworthiness Assurance

Center of Excellence (AACE) and the Engine Titanium Consortium

(ETC). Within the appropriation, the recommendation includes

$3,500,000 for the Center for Aviation Systems Reliability (CASR);

$4,000,000 for Airworthiness Assurance Center of Excellence

(AACE); $3,000,000 for Engine Titanium Consortium (ETC);

$3,000,000 for the Aging Aircraft Nondestructive Inspection Validation Center (AANC); and, $2,500,000 for the Center for Aviation

Research and Aerospace Technology (CARAT).

Anomalous flight monitor.—Within the funds provided, the Com- mittee includes $3,000,000 to develop a pilot project at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to create a system that integrates and

leverages the capabilities of mobile software objects to monitor and

understand current air traffic operations and to sense the ‘‘state’’ of an aircraft for anomalous flight conditions.

Weather research safety.—The Committee recommendation pro- vides $19,406,000 to continue the FAA’s weather research program

that is focused on system safety. Within the funds provided for

weather research, the Committee recommendation includes

$5,000,000 to continue research to identify wake turbulence by utilizing pulsed laser Doppler radar technology.

IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM

Weather research efficiency.—The Committee includes

$12,099,000 for weather research to improve the efficiency of the

air traffic control system. Within the funds provided, the ComVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:06 Aug 01, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX pfrm11 PsN: SR224
57

mittee includes $5,000,000 for wake turbulence research to expedite the development of new standards and procedures.

REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF AVIATION

Environment and energy research.—The Committee provides

$2,698,000 for environment and energy research, a reduction of

$5,000,000 due to budget constraints.

GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2002 1 ........................................................................... $1,800,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 3,100,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,100,000,000

1Does not reflect $175,000,000 of direct supplemental appropriations pursuant to Public Law

107–117.

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 $3,100,000,000 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, 2002 ................................................................... $3,300,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 3,400,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 3,400,000,000

The total program level recommended for fiscal year 2003 for

grants-in-aid to airports is $3,400,000,000 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 $81,049,000 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 May 1, 2002, 330 airports

have been approved for collection of PFC’s in the amount of

$34,000,000,000. During calendar year 2001 airports collected

$1,590,000,000 in PFC charges, and $1,940,000,000 is estimated to

be collected in calendar year 2002. 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 $1,610,000,000 in calendar year

2001, depending on the number of applications received and approved and assuming current statutory authority. The first collecVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:06 Aug 01, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX pfrm11 PsN: SR224
58

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 $3,400,000,000 for

fiscal year 2003. This is the same as the President’s budget request

and $100,000,000 over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.

A table showing the distribution of these funds compared to the

fiscal year 2002 levels and the President’s budget request follows:

Fiscal year 2003 (Est.)

AIR–21 Appropriations Limitation ....................................................... $3,400,000,000

Airports Operations ........................................................................ ¥64,620,000

Research & Development ............................................................... ¥16,429,000

Small Community Program ........................................................... ¥20,000,000

Available for AIP Grants ............................................................ 3,298,951,000

Primary Airports .................................................................................... 1,028,358,014

Cargo (3.0 percent) ................................................................................ 98,968,530

Alaska Supplemental ............................................................................. 21,345,114

States (20.0 percent):

Non-Primary Entitlement .............................................................. 341,887,082

State Apportionment by Formula ................................................. 317,903,118

Subtotal ........................................................................................ 659,790,200

Carryover Entitlement .......................................................................... 300,000,000

Subtotal Entitlements ................................................................ 2,108,461,858

Small Airport Fund:

Non Hub Airports ........................................................................... 183,303,989

Non Commercial Service ................................................................ 91,651,994

Small Hub ....................................................................................... 45,825,997

Subtotal Small Airport Fund ..................................................... 320,781,980

Subtotal Non Discretionary ........................................................ 2,429,243,838

Noise (34 percent of Disc) ..................................................................... 295,700,436

Reliever (0.66 percent of Disc) .............................................................. 5,740,067

MAP (4 percent of Disc) ........................................................................ 34,788,286

Subtotal Disc Set-asides ............................................................. 336,228,789

C/S/S/N ................................................................................................... 400,108,780

Remaining Discretionary ...................................................................... 133,369,593

Subtotal Other Discretionary ..................................................... 533,478,373

Subtotal Discretionary ................................................................ $869,707,162

GRAND TOTAL .......................................................................... 3,298,951,000

AIRPORT DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

Within the overall obligation limitation in this bill, over

$869,000,000 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 2003. Specifically, the Committee expects the FAA to give priority consideration

59

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 2003 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.

Within the program levels recommended, the Committee directs

that priority be given to applications involving the further development of the following airports:

Airport Project

Abilene Airport, TX .................................................................................... Various Improvements

Akutan Airport, AK .................................................................................... Various Improvements

Allen Army Airbase, AK ............................................................................. Various Improvements & Maintenance

Anchorage Int’l Airport, AK ....................................................................... Various Improvements

Andalusia Opp, AL .................................................................................... Runway/Taxiway Overlay

Andrews-Murphy Airport, NC .................................................................... Various Improvements

Ankeny Regional Airport, IA ...................................................................... Hangar, Taxiway, Apron

Artesia Municipal Airport, NM .................................................................. Various Improvements

Atka Airport, AK ........................................................................................ Various Improvements

Atmore Municipal Airport, AL ................................................................... Improvements in Safety Zones

Austin Straubel Field, WI ......................................................................... Various Improvements

Autauga County Airport, AL ...................................................................... Overlay, Widen Existing Runway

Baltimore-Washington Int’l Airport, MD ................................................... Various Improvements

Barbour County Regional, WV .................................................................. Various Improvements

Barkley Regional Airport, KY .................................................................... Runway Extension, Various Improvements

Barter Island Dew Airport (Kaktovik), AK ................................................. Various Improvements

Bartlesville Municipal Airport, OK ............................................................ Runway, Safety Area

Batesville Regional Airport, AR ................................................................ Various Improvements

Baxter County Regional Airport, AR ......................................................... Runway

Benedum Airport, WV ............................................................................... Various Improvements

Bert Mooney Airport, MT ........................................................................... Various Improvements

Billings Airport, MT .................................................................................. Terminal & Security

Birmingham International Airport, AL ...................................................... Various Improvements

Bismark Municipal Airport, ND ................................................................ Terminal Replacement

Blackwell Field Airport, AL ....................................................................... Land Acquisition for Runway Extension

Bob Wiley Field Airport, SD ...................................................................... Various Improvements

Bowling Green/Warren Regional, KY ........................................................ Facility

Bowman Field Airport, KY ........................................................................ Various Improvements

Braxton County Airport, WV ...................................................................... Various Improvements

Bremerton Airport, WA .............................................................................. Various Improvements

Bruce Campbell Field Airport, MS ............................................................ Land Acq., Taxiway

Buffalo Int’l Airport, NY ........................................................................... Runway,Taxiway Ext./Rehab.

Burlington-Alamance Airport, NC ............................................................. Various Improvements

Bush Field Airport, GA .............................................................................. New Terminal, Access & Parking

Carl P. Savage Airport, GA ....................................................................... Runway Extension & Widening

Cartersville/Bartow Airport, GA ................................................................ Various Improvements

Central Illinois Regional.Bloomington-Normal, IL .................................... Airport Improvement Projects

Central Nebraska Regional Airport, NE .................................................... Taxiway & Runway

Central Wisconsin Airport, WI .................................................................. Runway, Taxiway

Centre Municipal Airport, AL .................................................................... Land Acquisition & Runway Ext.

Chan Gurney Airport, SD .......................................................................... Runway Lighting System

Charlottsville-Albermarle Airport, VA ....................................................... Various Improvements

Cherokee County Airport, GA .................................................................... Runway Ext., Taxiway & Hangar

Cherry Capital Airport, MI ........................................................................ Terminal Construction

Cheyene Airport, WY ................................................................................. Runway Safety Area & Taxiway

Cheyenne Airport, CO ............................................................................... Runway Safety & Taxiway

Cheyenne Eagle Butte, SD ....................................................................... Reservation Hangar

Chippewa County Int’l Airport, MI ............................................................ Passenger Terminal

Cincinnati Northern Kentucky Regional, KY ............................................. Feasibility Study

Clarion County Airport, PA ....................................................................... Runway Expansion

60

Airport Project

Clark County Airport, IN ........................................................................... Lengthen Runway

Cleveland-Hopkins Int’l Airport, OH ......................................................... Noise Mitigation

Clinton Airport, IA ..................................................................................... Runway, Taxiway Paving

Concord Regional Airport,NC .................................................................... Runway Ext., Land Acquisition

Connellsville Airport, PA ........................................................................... Runway Extension

Council Bluffs Airport, IA ......................................................................... Land Acquisition, Runway

Craig Field Airport, AL .............................................................................. Runway Improvements

Cumberland Regional Airport, MD ........................................................... Various Improvements

Dane County Regional Airport, WI ............................................................ Runway Construction

Davenport Municipal Airport, IA ............................................................... New Terminal Building

Davis City Airport, WV .............................................................................. Various Improvements

Denton Municipal Airport, TX ................................................................... Improvements

Denver International Airport, CO .............................................................. Runway

Detroit Metro Wayne County Airport, MI ................................................... Terminal, Runway Rehabilitation

Dona Ana County Airport, NM .................................................................. Runway and Taxiway

Drake Field, AR ......................................................................................... Various Improvements

Eagle County Airport, CO ......................................................................... Radar Improvements

Eastern Iowa Regional Airport, IA ............................................................ Taxiway, Aprons

Eastern West Virginia, WV ....................................................................... Various Improvements

Easterwood Airport, TX ............................................................................. Various Improvements

Elkins-Randolph Field, WV ....................................................................... Various Improvements

Emmett County Regional Airport, MI ....................................................... Passenger Terminal

Erie International, PA ............................................................................... Runway Extension

Essex County Airport, NJ .......................................................................... Various Improvements

Fairfield County Airport, SC ..................................................................... Runway Extension

Fairfield Municipal Airport, IA .................................................................. Runway & Taxiway

Fairhope Municipal Airport, AL ................................................................. New Runway

Fairmont Municipal Airport, WV ............................................................... Various Improvements

False Pass Airport, AK .............................................................................. Various Improvements

Fayette Airport, WV ................................................................................... Various Improvements

Ford Airport, MI ........................................................................................ Runway Reconstruction

Freeport Albertus Airport, IL ..................................................................... Airport Improvement Projects

Fort Lauderdale Airport, FL ...................................................................... Automated People Mover Study

General Mitchell International Airport , WI .............................................. Taxiway Extension

Georgetown Air Services Airport, DE ........................................................ Security Improvements

Glacier Park Int’l Airport, MT ................................................................... Infrastructure Projects

Glynco Jetport, GA .................................................................................... Terminal, Renovation

Golden Triangle Regional Airport, MS ...................................................... Various Improvement

Grand Forks Int’l Airport, ND ................................................................... Runway & Parallel Taxiway

Grant County Airport, WV ......................................................................... Various Improvements

Great Falls International Airport, MT ....................................................... Category III Upgrades

Greater Rochester Int’l Airport, NY .......................................................... Various Improvements

Greater Rockford Airport, IL ..................................................................... Airport Improvement Projects

Greenbriar Valley Airport, WV ................................................................... Various Improvements

Gulfport-Biloxi Airport, MS ....................................................................... Terminal Expansion & Security

Harrell Field Airport, AR ........................................................................... Various Improvements

Harrisburg International Airport, PA ........................................................ Multimodal Terminal

Headland Municipal Airport, AL ............................................................... Land Acquisition, Runway, & Taxiway

Helena Regional Airport, MT .................................................................... Facility Modernization

Henry E. Rohlsen Airport, St. Croix .......................................................... Runway Extension

Herrell Field Airport, AR ........................................................................... Repair Facility Camden

Highmore Municipal Airport, SD ............................................................... Runway

Holly Springs-Marshall County Airport, MS .............................................. Runway Extension

Houston Municipal Airport, MS ................................................................ Improvements

Houston Municipal Airport, TX ................................................................. AIP Priority Language

Indiana City-Jimmy Stewart Airport, PA ................................................... Runway Extension

Jackson County Airport, WV ...................................................................... Various Improvements

Jackson Int’l Airport, MS .......................................................................... Terminal Renovations

Jackson Municipal Airport, AL .................................................................. Improvement Project

Johnstown-Cambria County Airport, PA ................................................... Distribution Center

Jonesboro Municipal Airport, AR .............................................................. Runway Expansion & terminal

Joplin Regional Airport, MO ...................................................................... Terminal Improvements

Juneau Harbor Int’l Airport, AK ................................................................ Various Improvements

Kansas City Downtown Airport, MO ......................................................... Runway & Terminal Improvements

Kee Field Airport, WV ................................................................................ Various Improvements

Kennett Memorial Airport, MO .................................................................. Runway Improvements

61

Airport Project

Ketchikan Int’l Airport, AK ........................................................................ Various Improvements

Key Field Airport, MS ................................................................................ New Terminal Building

Kodiak Airport, AK .................................................................................... Various Improvements

LaCrosse Municipal Airport, WI ................................................................ Parallel Taxiway

Lafayette Airport, LA ................................................................................. Runway, Taxiway

Lambert Airport, MO ................................................................................. Parks & Runway Project

Lawrence County Airport, PA .................................................................... Various Improvements

Lehigh Valley International Airport, PA .................................................... Lighting

Lewis County Airport, MO ......................................................................... Hangar Projects

Lewis University Airport, IL ...................................................................... Runway & Hangar

Livingston County Airport, MI ................................................................... Runway Construction

Logan County Airport, WV ........................................................................ Various Improvements

Louisville Int’l Airport, KY ........................................................................ Integrated Advanced Technology, Noise

Madison Airport, MS ................................................................................. Land Acquisition, Taxiway

Madison County Airport, AL ...................................................................... Various Improvements

Manistee County Blacker Airport, MI ....................................................... Terminal Building

Marion-Crittenden County Airport, KY ...................................................... Expansion

Marks Airport, MS ..................................................................................... Runway Extension

Marlinton City Airport, WV ........................................................................ Various Improvements

Marshall City Airport,WV .......................................................................... Various Improvements

Mason City Airport, IA .............................................................................. Runway

Mason County Airport, WV ........................................................................ Various Improvements

McAlester Airport, OK ............................................................................... Runway & Various Improvements

McComb-Pike County Airport, MS ............................................................ Various Improvements

McKinney Municipal Airport, TX ............................................................... Taxiway

Memorial Field Airport, AR ....................................................................... Terminal Hangars

Mercer City Airport, WV ............................................................................ Various Improvements

Meridian Key Field Airport, MS ................................................................. Construction

Miami International Airport, FL ................................................................ Apron Construction Project

Mingo County Airport, WV ........................................................................ Various Improvements

Minneapolis-St. Paul Int’l Airport, MN ..................................................... De-icing/holding pad

Missoula Int’l Airport, MT ......................................................................... Master Plan, Runway, Land

Monroe Municipal Airport, NC .................................................................. Security Improvements

Monroe Regional Airport, LA ..................................................................... Terminal

Montgomery Regional (Dannelly Field) Airport, AL .................................. Terminal Improvements

Morganton-Lenoir Airport, NC ................................................................... Terminal & Parking

Morgantown Muni-walter, WV .................................................................. Various Improvements

Nashville Int’l Airport, TN ......................................................................... Security Enhancement

New Castle County Airport, DE ................................................................ Digital Video Recording System

New Orleans Airport, LA ........................................................................... Various Improvements

Newport News-Williamsburg Int’l, VA ...................................................... Baggage Claim Facility

Newton Airport, IA .................................................................................... Taxiway

Niagara Falls Int’l Airport, NY ................................................................. Hangar Demolition

Northwest Arkansas Regional, AR ............................................................ Airport Expansion

Oakland Pontiac County Airport, MI ......................................................... Noise Mitigation Program

Ogden Hinckley Airport, UT ...................................................................... Runway Extension

Orlando Int’l Airport, FL ........................................................................... Wildlife Attractants Project

Orlando Sanford International Airport, FL ................................................ Runway

Ottumwa Industrial Airport, IA ................................................................. Taxiway

Palmer Municipal Airport, AK ................................................................... Various Improvements

Petersburg Airport, AK .............................................................................. Runway Apron & Various Improvements

Philadelphia International Airport, PA ..................................................... Capital Improvements

Philadelphia Municipal Airport, MS ......................................................... Airfield Expansion

Pierre Regional Airport, SD ...................................................................... Runway & Lighting System

Pilot Point, AK .......................................................................................... Airport Expansion

Pittsburgh International Airport, PA ......................................................... Runway & Security

Port Columbus Int’l Airport, OH ............................................................... Airport Improvements

Port Heiden Airport, AK ............................................................................ Airport Expansion

Princeton/Caldwell County Airport, KY ..................................................... Runway Extension

Pryor Field Regional, AL ........................................................................... Various Improvements

Quad City Airport/Moline, IL ..................................................................... Airport Improvement Projects

Raleigh City Memorial, WV ....................................................................... Various Improvements

Ralph Wein Memorial Airport (Kotzebue) AK ............................................ Various Improvements

Ralph Wien Memorial, AK ......................................................................... Passenger Terminal, Road Relocation

Reagan National Airport, VA .................................................................... Various Improvements

Reno Stead Airport, NV ............................................................................ Runway and Taxiway

62

Airport Project

Reno/Tahoe Int’l Airport, NV ..................................................................... Taxiway, Runway

Richard B. Russel Airport, GA .................................................................. Runway Extension & Security

Ripley County Airport, MS ........................................................................ Runway Extension

Roberts Field Airport, OR ......................................................................... Terminal, Expansion

Rock County Airport,WI ............................................................................. Runway

Rockingham-Hamlet County Airport, NC .................................................. Expansion

Romeo State Airport, MI ........................................................................... Runway Improvements

Roswell Airport, NM .................................................................................. Maintenance Facility Expansion

Russellville Municipal Airport, AL ............................................................ Runway Extension

Rutland State Airport, VT ......................................................................... Public Taxiway

Ryan Field Baton Rouge Airport, LA ........................................................ Various Improvements, Language

Saline County, AR ..................................................................................... Relocation

Shreveport Regional Airport, LA ............................................................... Runway, Noise, Cargo

Southcenteral, AK ..................................................................................... Float Plane Facility

Spencer City Airport, WV .......................................................................... Various Improvements

Spokane Int’l Airport, WA ......................................................................... Taxiway

Springfield Capital Airport, IL .................................................................. Airport Improvement Projects

Springfield/Branson Mid-field, MO ........................................................... Terminal Project

St. George, UT .......................................................................................... Replacement Airport Land Acquisition

St. Louis Lambert, MO ............................................................................. Expansion & Noise Mitigation

St. Paul & St. George, Pribilof Island, AK ............................................... Runway Improvements

Stanly County Airport, NC ........................................................................ Various Improvements

Statesville Airport, NC .............................................................................. Various Improvements

Stennis Int’l Airport, MS ........................................................................... Expansion

Stockton Metro Airport,CA ........................................................................ Upgrades

Summersville Airport, WV ......................................................................... Various Improvements

The Eastern Iowa Airport, IA .................................................................... Taxiway, Apron

Toledo Express Airport, OH ....................................................................... Remediation & Land Development

Tom B David Field Airport, GA ................................................................. Security & Infrastructure

Tri-State/Walker-Long Field, WV ............................................................... Various Improvements

Tulsa International Airport, OK ................................................................ Security Improvements

Tunica County Airport, MS ....................................................................... Construct Main Aircraft Parking Apron

Unalaska Airport, AK ................................................................................ Various Improvements

Upshur County Regional Airport, WV ....................................................... Various Improvements

Vermillion Airport, IL ................................................................................ Various Improvements

Walnut Ridge Regional Airport, AR .......................................................... Runway Extension

Washington Memorial Airport, MO ........................................................... Runway Project

Waynesboro Municipal Airport, MS ........................................................... Extension and Runway Widening

Weedon Field Airport, AL .......................................................................... Construct Parallel Taxiway

Welch Municipal Airport, WV .................................................................... Various Improvements

Wendell H. Ford Airport, KY ...................................................................... Various Improvements

Wheeling-Ohio Airport, WV ....................................................................... Various Improvements

Wilmington International, NC ................................................................... Various Improvements

Winfield City Airport, WV .......................................................................... Various Improvements

Winona-Montgomery County Airport, MS .................................................. Various Improvements

Wood City/Gill Robb Wilson Field, WV ...................................................... Various Improvements

Yeager Airport, WV ................................................................................... Various Improvements

LETTERS OF INTENT

Congress authorized FAA to use letters of intent [LOI’s] to fund

multiyear airport improvement projects that will significantly enhance 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.

63

ADMINISTRATION

The bill provides that, within the overall obligation limitation,

$81,049,000 is available for administration of the airports program

by the FAA and airport technology research.

The Committee recommendation includes $16,429,000 for Airport

Technology Research. The program is included in AIP for fiscal

year 2003 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.

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 1995–2002.

It was requested by the administration for fiscal year 2003.

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

2003.

Facilitating Environmental Reviews to Increase Airport Capacity.—The bill authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration (sec.

338) 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 and TSA Facilities on Airport Property.—The bill includes

a provision (sec. 335) that prohibits funds in this Act to be used

to adopt guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide the Federal Aviation Administration or the Transportation Security Administration ‘‘without cost’’ buildings, maintenance, or

space for FAA services. The prohibition does not apply to negotiations between FAA and airport sponsors concerning ‘‘below market’’

rates for such services or to grant assurances that require airport

sponsors to provide land without cost to the FAA for air traffic control facilities. The prohibition also does not apply to the TSA’s use

of space for security checkpoints.

64

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2003 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

$32,892,767,000 would be provided for the activities of the Federal

Highway Administration in fiscal year 2003. The following table

summarizes the fiscal year 2002 program levels, the fiscal year

2003 program request and the Committee’s recommendations:

[In thousands of dollars]

Program

Fiscal year—

Committee rec2002 program ommendation

level

2003 budget

estimate

Federal-aid highways limitation 1 .............................................................. 31,799,104 23,204,787 31,800,000

Limitation on administrative expenses 1 .......................................... (311,000) (317,732) (317,732)

Exempt Federal-aid obligations ................................................................. 965,308 892,767 892,767

Appalachian Development Highway System .............................................. 200,000 ........................ 200,000

Total .............................................................................................. 32,964,412 24,097,554 32,892,767

1 Does not reflect TASC reduction of $841,000 in section 349 of Public Law 107–87 as amended by sec. 1106, Public Law 107–117.

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2002 1 ........................................................................... $311,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 2 ......................................................................... 317,732,000

Committee recommendation 2 ............................................................... 317,732,000

1Does not reflect TASC reduction of $841,000 in section 349 of Public Law 107–87 as amended

by sec. 1106, Public Law 107–117. 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 $317,732,000. Within the funds provided,

the Committee includes $1,261,000 for the Office of Intermodalism.

The following table reflects the fiscal year 2002 level, the 2003

level requested by the administration, and the Committee’s recommendation:

[In thousands of dollars]

Program

Fiscal year—

Committee

recommendation 2002 level 2003 budget estimate

Administrative expenses:

Salaries and benefits ................................................................. 222,936 231,857 231,857

Travel .......................................................................................... 9,473 9,473 9,473

Transportation ............................................................................. 465 465 465

GSA rent ...................................................................................... 20,621 24,646 24,646

Communications, rent, and utilities ........................................... 9,607 9,607 9,607

65

[In thousands of dollars]

Program

Fiscal year—

Committee

recommendation 2002 level 2003 budget estimate

Printing ....................................................................................... 1,412 1,412 1,412

TASC ............................................................................................ 7,025 6,184 6,184

Supplies ...................................................................................... 2,000 2,000 2,000

Equipment ................................................................................... 4,536 4,536 4,536

Other (including Office of Intermodalism) ................................. 32,925 27,552 27,552

Total ........................................................................................ 1 311,000 317,732 317,732

1 Does not reflect TASC reduction of $841,000 in section 349 of Public Law 107–87 as amended by section 1106, Public Law 107–117.

The Committee recommends the following items be funded under section 104(a)(1)(A): $106,967,000 for the border enforcement program within the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

Within that amount, $47,000,000 shall be available for the construction of border inspection facilities along the U.S./Mexico border. The administration’s budget proposed that this $47,000,000 expenditure be funded as a statutory earmark within the National

Corridor Planning and Development Program.

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.

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, 2002 1 .............................................................................. $31,799,104,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ...................................................................... 23,204,787,000

Committee recommendation ............................................................. 31,800,000,000

1Does not reflect 0.22 percent reduction in section 1403 of Public Law 106–554.

The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal year 2003 Federal-aid highways obligations to $31,800,000,000 an increase of $896,000 over the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and

$8,595,213,000 over the budget request.

The following table shows the distribution of highway funds apportioned to the States under four scenarios: the fiscal year 2002

enacted level, the President’s budget, the level authorized in

TEA21 without any negative adjustment associated with the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority Program, and the Committee recommendation.

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2003 DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION

LIMITATION

States Actual fiscal year

2002 distribution 1

Fiscal year 2003

President’s budget 1

Fiscal year 2003

TEA21 (No RABA) 1

Fiscal year 2003

Committee recommendation 1

Alabama ........................................................ $561,362,701 $415,438,659 $497,809,309 $572,658,214

Alaska ........................................................... 314,793,656 243,992,539 282,049,558 317,551,112

Arizona .......................................................... 486,222,525 360,625,443 428,178,058 491,481,051

66

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2003 DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION

LIMITATION—Continued

States Actual fiscal year

2002 distribution 1

Fiscal year 2003

President’s budget 1

Fiscal year 2003

TEA21 (No RABA) 1

Fiscal year 2003

Committee recommendation 1

Arkansas ....................................................... 362,646,673 271,870,783 325,162,357 371,757,917

California ...................................................... 2,516,921,592 1,873,897,524 2,251,986,391 2,605,145,070

Colorado ........................................................ 353,162,510 262,226,522 315,313,485 364,328,955

Connecticut ................................................... 408,915,843 309,661,533 366,787,459 420,695,641

Delaware ....................................................... 119,922,108 89,903,183 107,786,314 124,522,828

District of Columbia ..................................... 110,272,767 80,228,034 97,670,902 114,203,615

Florida ........................................................... 1,288,949,611 962,397,636 1,138,108,292 1,303,298,956

Georgia .......................................................... 988,683,758 736,644,102 874,372,963 1,004,343,983

Hawaii ........................................................... 142,269,483 105,377,242 126,117,171 145,782,286

Idaho ............................................................. 211,274,214 158,107,857 188,164,413 215,883,889

Illinois ........................................................... 933,052,868 687,635,445 828,349,186 962,103,966

Indiana .......................................................... 637,416,428 480,626,303 571,752,610 657,942,217

Iowa .............................................................. 329,539,179 244,147,409 295,194,209 343,615,244

Kansas .......................................................... 324,853,609 237,945,876 288,082,372 335,681,036

Kentucky ........................................................ 483,773,648 357,260,223 428,654,998 496,043,266

Louisiana ...................................................... 433,572,935 326,043,519 391,892,073 454,479,647

Maine ............................................................ 147,086,603 108,424,690 130,260,610 148,907,537

Maryland ....................................................... 444,585,693 334,786,649 402,215,120 465,946,381

Massachusetts .............................................. 514,199,794 382,618,573 460,170,290 528,895,677

Michigan ....................................................... 894,928,134 664,400,228 792,891,230 914,522,416

Minnesota ..................................................... 408,442,237 304,948,964 367,024,766 426,121,388

Mississippi .................................................... 355,303,061 264,919,392 317,912,106 368,074,860

Missouri ........................................................ 646,921,711 481,643,989 579,580,765 670,611,287

Montana ........................................................ 266,186,472 202,334,294 239,147,070 273,465,583

Nebraska ....................................................... 215,987,903 157,601,762 190,753,358 221,920,788

Nevada .......................................................... 197,993,516 147,568,451 175,748,970 202,310,700

New Hampshire ............................................. 140,214,707 105,843,997 126,691,084 145,549,494

New Jersey .................................................... 724,629,766 534,247,633 643,336,952 747,051,638

New Mexico ................................................... 268,590,255 201,195,690 240,387,850 277,424,892

New York ....................................................... 1,401,040,155 1,050,848,025 1,260,822,015 1,460,333,241

North Carolina .............................................. 773,663,974 576,896,840 686,915,153 790,739,256

North Dakota ................................................. 179,364,219 133,140,857 159,945,661 185,093,263

Ohio ............................................................... 961,276,478 715,885,800 858,861,756 994,232,940

Oklahoma ...................................................... 428,332,860 313,870,027 379,144,803 439,882,856

Oregon ........................................................... 337,795,085 252,007,794 303,669,209 346,942,106

Pennsylvania ................................................. 1,391,590,528 1,031,424,560 1,241,077,672 1,421,075,966

Rhode Island ................................................. 164,111,783 121,859,206 145,918,370 167,518,858

South Carolina .............................................. 461,159,042 345,741,214 411,340,455 469,016,474

South Dakota ................................................ 199,167,503 148,832,688 178,370,728 201,619,207

Tennessee ..................................................... 622,352,003 470,475,704 564,021,658 652,460,489

Texas ............................................................. 2,146,241,884 1,593,917,206 1,895,420,532 2,176,247,712

Utah .............................................................. 216,502,048 159,143,771 192,107,692 223,449,500

Vermont ......................................................... 124,154,439 92,915,343 111,740,964 129,451,017

Virginia ......................................................... 709,623,612 537,180,528 640,818,719 737,593,183

Washington ................................................... 493,764,590 363,330,177 438,456,193 509,989,784

West Virginia ................................................ 308,053,178 231,628,118 278,412,016 322,971,290

Wisconsin ...................................................... 545,543,085 405,758,783 482,676,315 555,299,224

Wyoming ........................................................ 188,996,676 141,882,461 170,844,171 197,057,048

SUBTOTAL ........................................ 27,885,409,102 20,781,303,246 24,870,116,373 28,673,294,948

Allocation Programs 2 ................................... 3,913,694,898 2,423,483,754 2,783,883,627 3,126,705,052

TOTAL ............................................... 31,799,104,000 23,204,787,000 27,654,000,000 31,800,000,000

1 Includes special limitation for minimum guarantee, Appalachia, and high priority projects and excludes exempt minimum guarantee and

emergency relief. 2 Includes territories.

67

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

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 2003 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount

I–15 Reconstruction, 10800 South to 600 North, UT ......................... $6,000,000

I–182/SR–240 Interchange Reconstruction, WA ................................. 3,000,000

I–195 Relocation Project, RI ................................................................. 3,000,000

I–25 Broadway & Alameda Interchange Rebuilding, CO ................... 5,000,000

I–29 Madison Street Interchange, Sioux Falls, SD ............................ 4,000,000

I–295 Via Duct to I–76, NJ ................................................................... 2,000,000

I–30/I–35 Dallas, Construction of Bridges for Trinity River, TX ....... 6,000,000

I–90, Exit 32 Interchange at Sturgis, SD ............................................ 4,000,000

I–35/Turkey Creek, Reconstruction Project, KS .................................. 3,000,000

68

Project Amount

I–40 Crosstown Realignment, OK ........................................................ 6,000,000

I–40 Paseo del Volcan Interchange, Albuquerque, NM ...................... 2,000,000

I–44 & US 65 Interchange, MO ............................................................ 2,000,000

I–55 Church Rd. to TN State Line, DeSoto County, MS .................... 10,000,000

I–55/US–49 Flyover Near Jackson, MS ............................................... 6,000,000

I–65/70 Market Square Redesign/Replace ramp, IN .......................... 5,000,000

I–75 Improvements South West Florida, FL ....................................... 2,000,000

I–75/I–475 Systems Interchange Upgrade at North Cove, OH .......... 1,100,000

I–90 Joint Port of Entry Project, WY ................................................... 2,500,000

Marquette Interchange Reconstruction, WI ........................................ 8,000,000

Port of Garfield Road & Bridge Road, WA .......................................... 500,000

Route 80 Paterson Interchange,NJ ...................................................... 400,000

Sunnyside, South First St. Reconstruction, WA ................................. 1,500,000

SW First-NW Lake Road Project, WA ................................................. 3,000,000

Union Gap, Valley Mall Blvd., WA ...................................................... 1,500,000

US–12, Burbank to Walla Walla, WA .................................................. 2,500,000

US–63/I–70 Interchange Improvements, MO ...................................... 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.

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 2003 shall be available for the following activities in the corresponding amounts:

Project Amount

Bull Slough Bridge Repair, AL ............................................................. $1,000,000

Canvas Bridge, Nicholas County, WV .................................................. 6,000,000

Covered Bridges, including $2,000,000 for Vermont .......................... 10,000,000

Depot Street Bridge restoration, Beacon Falls, CT ............................ 1,000,000

Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit, CA ............................................ 6,000,000

69

Project Amount

Granite Street Bridge, Manchester, NH .............................................. 8,000,000

Historic Woodrow Wilson Bridge, Flowood, MS .................................. 1,000,000

Hot Metal Bridge, PA ............................................................................ 500,000

I–195 Washington Bridge Replacement, RI ........................................ 8,000,000

Indian River Inlet Bridge Repairs in Sussex, DE ............................... 5,000,000

Lexington Bridge, Cowlitz-Wahkiakum WA ........................................ 7,500,000

Market Street Bridge Replacement, Lycoming County, PA ............... 4,500,000

Missouri River Two State Bridge Project, NE ..................................... 4,000,000

Monroe St. Bridge Rehabilitation, Spokane WA ................................. 2,500,000

Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge Reconstruction, New Haven, CT ...... 6,000,000

Pomeroy-Mason Bridge, Mason County, WV ....................................... 6,000,000

Rehabilitation of the Waldo-Hancock Bridge, ME .............................. 5,000,000

Russell St. Viaduct Replacement (MD295) Baltimore, MD ................ 8,000,000

Sauvie Island Bridge, Replacement Project, OR ................................. 3,000,000

Snake River Crossing EIS, Twin Falls, ID .......................................... 1,000,000

Tate’s Bluff, Arkansas Replacement Bridge, AR ................................ 1,500,000

Wacker Drive Reconstruction, Chicago, IL .......................................... 4,500,000

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. Within this amount, $2,000,000 shall be

made available for covered bridges in the State of Vermont.

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 allocated to the National Park Service’s regions. Funds provided for

the Federal lands program in fiscal year 2003 shall be available for

the following activities:

Project Amount

Arches National Park Main Entrance Relocation, UT ....................... $1,250,000

BIA Route 13/Route1 Project, Makah, WA .......................................... 5,400,000

Blackstone River Valley Bikeway, RI .................................................. 2,000,000

Cattle Point Road, San Juan County, WA ........................................... 350,000

70

Project Amount

Colonial Historic Park—Jamestown 400th Anniversary Transportation Improvements, VA .................................................................. 2,170,000

Council Grove Lake Embankment Roadway, KS ................................ 1,500,000

Downeast Heritage Center, Parking & Access, ME ............................ 400,000

Fort Drum Road Improvements, NY .................................................... 770,000

Fox Ridge Road Repair, SD .................................................................. 1,300,000

Freemont County Project, WY .............................................................. 1,100,000

Frog Level Road, Neshoba County, MS ............................................... 1,000,000

Gateway Trail, Grand Canyon National Park, AZ ............................. 1,380,000

Glacier National Park, Going-to-the-Sun Road, MT ........................... 5,000,000

Hawaii Statewide Improvements ......................................................... 5,000,000

Highway 93 Expansion Project, MT ..................................................... 1,400,000

Homochitto National Forest Access Rd, Lincoln, MS ......................... 2,000,000

Hoonah Road (FM), AK ......................................................................... 1,400,000

Hoover Dam Bypass New Bridge downstream of Dam, NV .............. 8,500,000

Hoover Dam Bridge Bypass, AZ ........................................................... 2,000,000

Hwy 2 Highline EIS Project, MT .......................................................... 1,000,000

I–215 Widening, NV .............................................................................. 3,500,000

Iditarod Historic National Trail Project, AK ....................................... 500,000

Kenai River Trail, AK ........................................................................... 500,000

Lewis and Clark, Gates of the Mountains Road Project, MT ............ 600,000

Marsh-Billings-Rockefeller Park Pedestrian Walkway, VT ............... 380,000

Menominee Indian Tribe road improvements, WI .............................. 2,000,000

Metlakatla/Walden Point Road, AK ..................................................... 2,000,000

Naknek Lake Camp Road, AK .............................................................. 3,400,000

Patuxent River Naval Air Museum & Visitor Center, MD ................ 1,000,000

Preston North/South Richardson County, NE ..................................... 1,000,000

Shotgun Cove Road, AK ........................................................................ 2,000,000

Southeast Alaska Seatrails, AK ........................................................... 750,000

Spirit Lake Tribe Shared Use Path, Fort Totten, ND ........................ 520,000

SR–149 Resurfacing, Rio Grande National Forest, CO ...................... 2,000,000

SR–164 Muckleshoots, WA ................................................................... 420,000

SR–323 Paving Project, Ekalaka & Alzada, Fallon County, MT ....... 1,000,000

US 95 Widening Laughlin Cut-off to Railroad Pass, NV ................... 10,000,000

USMC Heritage Center Access, VA ..................................................... 2,000,000

Yakama Signal Peak Road, WA ........................................................... 4,150,000

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.

Value pricing program.—As the fiscal year 2003 applications for

the value pricing program are being reviewed, the Committee encourages FHWA to support the data collection phase of the pay-asyou-drive variable pricing research program in Atlanta, GA.

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 perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:06 Aug 01, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX pfrm11 PsN: SR224
71

manent repairs. If ER funds are exhausted, the Secretary of Transportation may borrow funds from other highway programs.

High priority projects.—TEA21 includes 1,850 high priority

projects specified by the Congress. Funding for these projects totals

$9,359,850,000 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.

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act

(TIFIA).—Programs authorized under the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) provide credit assistance on flexible terms directly to public-private sponsors of major

surface transportation projects to assist them in gaining access to

the capital markets. The Committee believes that TIFIA is an important part of the Federal Government’s overall infrastructure investment effort—one that is likely to grow in importance and size

in the future. Unfortunately, demand for resources under the program has not kept pace with the contract authority available under

TEA21. As such, the program is expected to carry an unspent balance of over $100,000,000 into fiscal year 2003. The Committee believes that the carryover balances will adequately cover the likely

demand for projects in 2003. As such, the Committee has used the

program’s contract authority to augment funding for the Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program

(TCSP), the National Corridor Planning and Development Program, and the Coordinated Border Infrastructure and Safety Program. Demand for resources under these programs will far outstrip

current authorizations in 2003.

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

the safe movement of people and goods at or across the U.S./Mexico

and U.S/Canada borders.

Funds provided for the National Corrider and Border Infrastructure Program shall be available for the following activities:

Project Amount

Alameda Corridor East, Rail-Highway Grade Separation Ontario

CA ........................................................................................................ $1,000,000

Appalachian North-South Corridor Planning Study, MD .................. 2,000,000

Charlotte/Mecklenburg County N/S Transitway, NC ......................... 3,000,000

Coalfields Expressway, McDowell County, WV .................................. 9,000,000

Continental—1 Hwy Corridor, Cambria County, PA .......................... 1,000,000

Cottondale-Holt Highway, AL .............................................................. 6,000,000

Everett Development 41st Street Interchange, WA ........................... 1,000,000

Fall River—Route 79 Improvements, MA ............................................ 1,000,000

FAST Corridor Project, WA .................................................................. 10,000,000

Ft. Wainwright Alternative Access & Chena River Crossing, AK ..... 2,000,000

Hoover Dam Bridge Bypass, AZ ........................................................... 6,000,000

Hwy 412, Widening, Paragould, Hwy 141, AR .................................... 7,000,000

Hwy-28 Expansion, Vernon Parish, LA ............................................... 4,500,000

I–5, SR 542 Widening Sunset Drive Orleans to Britton Rd., WA ..... 2,000,000

72

Project Amount

I–5 Trade Corridor, OR ......................................................................... 4,000,000

I–10/I–12 Split to Seigen Lane, Baton Route, LA ............................... 4,500,000

I–10/LA1 Interchange Bypass, West Baton Rouge Parish, LA .......... 1,000,000

I–15 widening project, North Las Vegas, NV ...................................... 1,000,000

I–20 Garrett Road Monroe, LA ............................................................. 1,000,000

I–35–E Widening, Dallas and Ellis Counties, TX ............................... 5,000,000

I–49 Northern Extension, LA ............................................................... 4,500,000

I–49 Southern Extension, LA ............................................................... 4,500,000

I–69 Anderson to Flagship Park Center, IN ....................................... 2,000,000

I–69 Construction, TX ........................................................................... 5,000,000

I–74 Bridge Project, IA .......................................................................... 5,000,000

I–80 Colfax Narrows Project, CA ......................................................... 1,000,000

I–85 Extension from Montgomery to I–20/59, AL ............................... 1,000,000

Japonski Island Road, AK ..................................................................... 1,000,000

Kenai Peninsula Borough Road Improvements, AK ........................... 1,000,000

Jonesboro Overpass, AR ........................................................................ 1,000,000

King Coal Highway, Mercer County, WV ............................................ 9,000,000

LA 1 Embankment Stabilization Improvements, LA ......................... 4,500,000

LA 11 St. Tammamy Parish, LA .......................................................... 500,000

LA 820, Lincoln Parish, LA .................................................................. 1,000,000

East-West Highway, ME ....................................................................... 3,000,000

Mill Plain Boulevard at I–205, WA ...................................................... 3,500,000

Missisquoi Bay Bridge Reconstruction, VT ......................................... 5,000,000

New Route 905, Otay Mesa to I–5/I–85m, CA .................................... 5,000,000

North Country Trans. Study, Plattsburgh/Watertown, NY ............... 3,000,000

Olathe 127th Street Overpass, KS ....................................................... 2,000,000

Osceola Toll Parkway, AR ..................................................................... 2,000,000

Panama City Beach, Florida West Bay Bridge Project, FL ............... 3,000,000

Peach St. Corridor Improvement Project, PA ...................................... 2,600,000

Pearl River Bridge Connector, I–55 to SR 475 Jackson, MS ............. 8,000,000

Polk County Highway 22 Project, OR .................................................. 2,000,000

Route 24/140 Interchange, MA ............................................................. 1,500,000

Rt-12 Corridor Improvement Project, NY ............................................ 6,000,000

Rt-403 Relocation, East Greenwich/North Kingstown, RI ................. 4,000,000

SR–130 Right of Way Willamson, Guadalupe, Travis and Caldwell,

TX ........................................................................................................ 10,000,000

SR–332 Reconstruction at I–69, Delaware County, IN ...................... 1,800,000

Sunland Park Dr. Border Rd. Extension, NM ..................................... 5,000,000

Tuscaloosa Eastern Bypass, AL ............................................................ 12,000,000

US–5 Improvements from Derby to Barton, VT ................................. 2,000,000

US–23 Buford Hwy Pedestrian Safety Project, GA ............................ 1,000,000

US–26 Widening SB-Heartland Expressway, NE ............................... 3,000,000

US–35/Route 34 to I–64, Putnam County, WV ................................... 4,000,000

US–51 to MS–43 Connector Road, Canton, MS .................................. 1,200,000

US–60 widening in Butler County, MO ............................................... 8,000,000

US–85/C–470 Santa Fe Interchange, CO ............................................ 6,000,000

US–95, milepost 536 stage 2 construction, Boundary County, ID .... 1,400,000

US–287, Wiley Junction Improvements, CO ....................................... 5,000,000

US–395, North Spokane Corridor,WA ................................................. 5,000,000

US–412, AR ............................................................................................ 8,000,000

US 17/521 Improvements, Georgetown, SC ......................................... 2,500,000

US 278 Highway Safety Modifications, SC ......................................... 4,000,000

WV Route 10, Logan County, WV ........................................................ 8,000,000

Yakima Grade Separation, WA ............................................................ 3,500,000

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

Beale Street Landing/Docking Facility Memphis, TN ........................ $500,000

Coffman Cove/Wrangell/Petersburg Ferries & Ferry Facility, AK .... 1,200,000

Corpus Christi Ferry Terminal, TX ..................................................... 500,000

Dock Construction for Hickman/Fulton County, Riverport, KY ........ 1,000,000

73

Project Amount

Ferry Boat Replacement for Rockland and Vinalhaven, ME ............. 2,750,000

Fire Island Ferry Terminal, Saltaire, NY ............................................ 800,000

Friday Harbor Ferry Terminal Preservation, WA .............................. 2,000,000

Kitsap Transit, Sidney Landing Terminal, WA .................................. 2,000,000

Middle Bass Ferry Dock Improvements, phase II, OH ...................... 750,000

North Carolina Shipyard, Manns Harbor, NC .................................... 1,000,000

San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority Ferry Project,

CA ........................................................................................................ 2,500,000

Ship Island Terminal, Gulfport, MS .................................................... 500,000

Stamford Ferry Terminal, CT ............................................................... 1,000,000

Vallejo Baylink Ferry, Terminal and Facilities, CA ........................... 1,500,000

TEA21 Setaside ...................................................................................... 20,000,000

National scenic byways program.—This program provides funding for roads that are designated by the Secretary of Transportation as All American Roads (AAR) or National Scenic Byways

(NSB). These roads have outstanding scenic, historic, cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities. The Committee recommendation provides $26,500,000 for this program in fiscal year

2002.

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

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 2003 shall be available for the following activities:

Project Amount

Aberdeen Downtown Revitalization, WA ............................................. $100,000

Alexandria, Third St. Downtown Reconnect Project, LA ................... 400,000

Amsterdam Revitalization Waterfront, NY ......................................... 500,000

Antelope Valley Overpass, Lincoln, NE ............................................... 1,000,000

Atchinson Riverfront Access Parkway Project, KS ............................. 1,000,000

Bagley Road Pedestrian Project, Berea, OH ....................................... 1,300,000

Bellingham Central Avenue Pedestrian Corridor, WA ....................... 250,000

Billings Railroad Separation Study, MT .............................................. 100,000

Boston Long Island Pier ADA Compliance, MA .................................. 200,000

Camp Corsuch Road & Related Improvements, AK ........................... 500,000

Charles Town Gateway Revitalization Project, WV ........................... 300,000

Charleston Renaissance Gateway Project, WV ................................... 950,000

Concord 20/20 Vision initiative, NH .................................................... 500,000

Dover Lincoln Park Center Project, DE ............................................... 400,000

East Grand Forks Greenway, MN ........................................................ 500,000

Eugene Federal Courthouse Area Concept Development, OR ........... 1,000,000

Fairbanks Street Improvements & Bike Path, AK ............................. 300,000

Falmouth-Yarmouth Bike Path, MA .................................................... 200,000

Flandreau Santee Sioux Traibe Bicycle and Walking Path, SD ........ 200,000

Fort Campbell Improvements, KY ....................................................... 750,000

Frink Park Pier Project, Clayton, NY .................................................. 250,000

Girdwood Road Culvery Improvement, AK ......................................... 600,000

Granite Street Project, Manchester, NH ............................................. 350,000

Gulf of Maine Research Laboratory, Park/Ped., ME .......................... 200,000

Hamilton Twp Pedestrian Overpass, NJ ............................................. 250,000

Highway-79 Corridor Greenway Project, AL ....................................... 500,000

I–40 and Avenue ‘‘F’’, City Ramp Project, OK .................................... 500,000

I–40/Paseo del Volcan Interchange, Albuquerque NM ....................... 750,000

I–55/Main St. Intersection, MO ............................................................ 100,000

Kansas City East/West Connector, MO ............................................... 500,000

74

Project Amount

Lewis and Clark Bicentennial Interpretive Trail, Mobridge SD ....... 250,000

Lewis and Clark Shared Use Path, ND ............................................... 675,000

Lithonia Streetscape Project, GA ......................................................... 1,000,000

Living Wall project, Farmington Hills, MI .......................................... 400,000

MD–404 Shore Highway Phase II, MD ................................................ 1,000,000

Museum Campus Trolleys, Chicago, IL ............................................... 500,000

Nashville Rolling Mill Hills, TN ........................................................... 500,000

Newberg-Dundee Transportation Improvement Project, OR ............. 775,000

Northside Drive Corridor Design, Clinton, MS ................................... 1,000,000

Odessa Transportation Plan, DE .......................................................... 100,000

Ohio River Trail—Salem to Downtown, Cincinnati, OH .................... 350,000

Oklahoma Transportation Center Improvements, OK ....................... 500,000

Old Route 66, Streetscape Phase I, Moriarity, NM ............................ 400,000

Orange County Congestion Program, CA ............................................ 1,000,000

Owensboro Waterfront Development Project, KY ............................... 750,000

Port of Anchorage road improvements, AK ......................................... 600,000

Paintsville Lake Access Road, KY ........................................................ 500,000

Pennyrile Parkway Improvements, KY ............................................... 750,000

Portsmouth Piscaraqu Riverwalk, NH ................................................. 500,000

Providence Road Trail Project, Virginia Beach,VA ............................. 400,000

Ruffner Mountain Nature Center, AL ................................................. 500,000

Selma Riverfront Project, AL ................................................................ 500,000

Shoreline Interurban Trail Construction Project, WA ........................ 400,000

South Bend Studebaker Corridor, Industrial Park, IN ...................... 500,000

Springfield Downtown Redevelopment Project, VT ............................ 1,500,000

SR202/I–70 Interchange improvement, OH ......................................... 750,000

Thea Foss Waterway Environmental Protection and Transportation

Impact Study, WA .............................................................................. 500,000

Tulsa Trail System, Broken Arrow, OK ............................................... 1,250,000

Ulster County Visitor Center, NY ........................................................ 1,000,000

Union City, NJ Traffic Signalization Project, NJ ............................... 1,000,000

US–50 Reconstruction, Dodge City, KS ............................................... 1,000,000

Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital, TN ..................................................... 250,000

Virginia Corridor Greenway Pilot Project, Modesto, CA .................... 500,000

Wakulla County Florida, US–319 Expansion, FL ............................... 250,000

Watertown Community Trail Extension, SD ....................................... 100,000

Yorktown Waterfront Revitalization & Streetscape, VA .................... 1,000,000

10th Street South Project, St. Cloud, MN ........................................... 1,000,000

19th Ave. North Extension/Reconstruction, Clinton, IA ..................... 1,500,000

19th St./Rimrock Way Ped. Improvements, Redmond OR ................. 100,000

APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $200,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 1 ......................................................................... ...........................

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 200,000,000

1The budget estimate requests funding under the Federal-Aid Highway obligation limitation.

The Committee recommendation includes $200,000,000 for the

Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS). The amount

provided is the same as the fiscal year 2002 comparable level.

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.

75

LIMITATION ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

Limitation, 2002 1 .................................................................................. $447,500,000

Budget estimate, 2003 1 ........................................................................ 462,500,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 462,500,000

1 Resources available in fiscal year 2002 and requested in fiscal year 2003 are assumed within

the Federal aid highway obligation limitation in the budget request for fiscal year 2003.

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

$462,500,000. This limitation is consistent with the provisions of

TEA21.

Surface transportation research ........................................................... $103,000,000

Technology deployment program .......................................................... 50,000,000

Training and education ......................................................................... 20,000,000

Bureau of Transportation Statistics ..................................................... 31,000,000

ITS standards, research, operational tests, and development ........... 110,000,000

ITS deployment ...................................................................................... 122,000,000

University transportation research ...................................................... 26,500,000

Subtotal ........................................................................................ 462,500,000

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.

Environment, planning, and real estate .............................................. $16,774,000

Research and technology program support ......................................... 8,545,000

International research ........................................................................... 500,000

Structures ............................................................................................... 13,085,000

Safety ...................................................................................................... 12,490,000

Highway operations ............................................................................... 13,101,000

Asset management ................................................................................ 3,290,000

Pavements research ............................................................................... 15,200,000

Policy research ....................................................................................... 8,510,000

Long Term Pavement Project (LTPP) .................................................. 10,000,000

Advanced Research ................................................................................ 750,000

R&T strategic planning/performance measures .................................. 755,000

Environment, planning, and real estate.—The Committee recommendation includes $16,774,000 for environment, planning, and

real estate research, which is $4,221,000 more than the budget estimate. Within the funds provided for this research activity, the

Committee has provided $800,000 to continue dust and persistent

particulate abatement research in Kotzebue, Alaska.

Research and technology program support.—The Committee recommends $8,545,000, an increase of $1,462,000 from the budget request and $410,000 more than the fiscal year 2002 enacted level.

Within the funds available for research and technology, the Committee has provided $750,000 for the Center on Coastal Transportation Research at the University of South Alabama.

International research.—The Committee recommendation includes $500,000 for international research. This is the same

amount provided in fiscal year 2002 and is consistent with the

amount authorized under TEA21.

76

Structures.—The Committee has provided $13,085,000 for struc- tures research, an increase of $4,067,000 from the budget request.

This research effort allows 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. The Committee directs the FHWA to continue its collaborative research effort with West Virginia University’s Construct Facilities Center regarding research into composite structure and related engineering

research. Within the funds for this research activity, the Committee has provided $500,000 for a demonstration project to evaluate the use of battery-powered cathodic protection to extend the life

of concrete bridges that are located in extreme cold weather conditions. The Committee recommendation also includes $500,000 to

support non-destructive structural evaluation technology at the

New Mexico State University’s Bridge Research Center.

Safety.—The Committee recommendation provides $12,490,000 for safety research, an increase of $2,973,000 above 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-road crashes, improve night-time driving, reduce the

frequency of crashes at intersections, improve pedestrian safety,

and develop, test, and refine the Interactive Highway Safety Design Model. Within the funds provided, the Committee included

$1,500,000 to conduct research into heavy vehicle safety, and vulnerability assessments regarding security and safety in all modes

of transportation at a not-for-profit, technology oriented entity in

the Pacific Northwest with demonstrated research capabilities to

address issues of braking, vehicle electrification and human factors.

Highway operations.—The Committee recommendation provides $13,101,000 for research activities regarding highway operations,

which is $3,309,000 more than the budget request. Within these

funds, the Committee has included $1,200,000 to analyze existing

conditions and make recommendations that will enhance the

freight mobility transportation system in Washington State.

Asset management.—The Committee recommends $3,290,000 for

asset management research activities, an increase of $631,000 from

the budget estimate.

Policy.—The Committee recommendation includes $8,510,000, an

increase of $180,000 from the fiscal year 2002 enacted level and an

increase of $1,263,000 above the budget estimate.

Pavements research.—The Committee recommends $15,200,000

for highway pavement research, including work on asphalt, Portland cement pavement research, polymer additives, and recycled

materials. This is $4,799,000 more than the budget estimate and

$1,447,000 more than the fiscal year 2002 enacted level. Within the

funds provided, the Committee has included $1,000,000 to the Center for Portland Cement Concrete Pavement Technology at Iowa

State University; $1,000,000 to continue evaluation of GSB–88

emulsified binder treatment application; $1,250,000 for the National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT) and $1,000,000 to

continue research related to silica fume high performance concrete.

Advanced research.—The Committee recommendation deletes

$203,000 from the budget request and provides $750,000. The ComVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:06 Aug 01, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX pfrm11 PsN: SR224
77

mittee notes the many of the proposed areas of research and technology investigation duplicate efforts in other research activities

and in the ITS research program.

R&T strategic planning and performance measures.—The Committee has provided $755,000 for research and technology strategic

planning and performance measures, an increase of $27,000 from

the budget request. The Committee anticipates that this level of

funding will be sufficient to support planned strategic planning activities, research outreach, and development and refinement of performance measures, as required by the Government Performance

and Results Act (GPRA).

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 $232,000,000

authorized in TEA21 for ITS research and associated activities in

fiscal year 2002 be allocated in the following manner:

Research and Development ................................................................... $50,701,000

Operational Tests .................................................................................. 10,782,000

Evaluation/Program Policy Assessment ............................................... 6,739,000

Architecture and Standards .................................................................. 18,868,000

Program Support ................................................................................... 11,455,000

Integration .............................................................................................. 11,455,000

ITS Deployment Incentive Program ..................................................... 122,000,000

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

Advance Traveler Info. System & Smart Card System, OH .............. $2,500,000

Alaska Statewide: Smart Emergency Medical Access System ........... 3,000,000

Boston Traffic Monitoring & Security System, MA ............................ 2,000,000

Bozeman Pass Wildlife Channelization Study, MT ............................ 500,000

Cargo Mate Logistics and Intermodal Management System, NY ..... 5,000,000

Cary, Computerized Traffic Signal System, NC ................................. 1,000,000

CCTA Burlington Multimodal Transit Center, VT ............................. 1,000,000

Center for Injury Sciences at UAB, Crash Notification, AL .............. 2,000,000

Central Florida Regional Trans. Authority, Orange/Seminole ITS,

FL ........................................................................................................ 2,000,000

Chinatown Intermodal Trans. Center, Los Angeles, CA .................... 2,500,000

Concord Parkway, Traffic Signals, NC ................................................ 1,500,000

CVISN, NM ............................................................................................ 1,125,000

Flint Mass Transportation Authority ITS program, MI ..................... 1,000,000

Intelligent Transportation Center, Atlanta, GA ................................. 750,000

GMU, ITS Research, VA ....................................................................... 2,000,000

Great Lakes ITS program, MI .............................................................. 4,000,000

Harrison County Sheriff’s Department, ITS, MS ................................ 1,000,000

Hoosier SAFE–T, IN .............................................................................. 3,000,000

78

Project Amount

Huntsville, AL ........................................................................................ 2,000,000

I–80 Dynamic Message Signs, Southern WY ...................................... 4,000,000

Idaho CVISN .......................................................................................... 2,250,000

Illinois Statewide ................................................................................... 5,000,000

Iowa Statewide ITS ............................................................................... 1,650,000

Kansas City Scout, Advanced Traffic Management System, KS ....... 1,500,000

Kansas City SmartPort ......................................................................... 1,000,000

Kent, Intracity Transit Project, WA ..................................................... 1,500,000

Lynnwood ITS, WA ................................................................................ 2,000,000

Maine Statewide, Rural Advanced Traveler Info. System, ME ......... 2,000,000

Maryland Statewide ITS ....................................................................... 2,000,000

Missouri Statewide Rural ITS, MO ...................................................... 2,000,000

NDSU Advanced Traffic Analysis Center, ND .................................... 1,000,000

Nebraska statewide ITS ........................................................................ 5,000,000

New Bedford ITS Port Information Center, MA ................................. 1,000,000

Oklahoma Statewide ITS ...................................................................... 7,000,000

Program of Projects, WA ....................................................................... 5,500,000

Providence Transportation Information Center, ITS, RI ................... 2,000,000

Sacramento Area Council of Governments, ITS, CA .......................... 1,000,000

Shreveport ITS Project, LA ................................................................... 1,000,000

South Carolina Statewide ITS .............................................................. 6,000,000

SR–68/Riverside Dr. ITS, Espanola, NM ............................................. 475,000

Surface Transportation Institute, Univ. of North Dakota, ND .......... 1,500,000

T–REX Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Project, CO ......................... 9,000,000

Tucson ER–LINK ITS project, AZ ........................................................ 1,250,000

Univ. of Nebraska Lincoln, SMART Transportation, NE ................... 2,000,000

University of Kentucky Transportation Center, KY ........................... 2,000,000

Utah Commuter Link, Davis and Utah Counties, UT ........................ 1,000,000

Vermont Statewide Rural Advanced Traveler System, VT ................ 1,500,000

Vermont Variable Message Signs, VT ................................................. 1,000,000

Washington DC Metro ITS ................................................................... 4,000,000

Willowbrook Avenue Rail Safety Program—Compton, CA ................ 2,000,000

Wisconsin State Patrol Mobile Data Communications Network ....... 2,000,000

Illinois ITS.—The Committee provides $5,000,000 to the Illinois

Department of Transportation (IDOT) for Intelligent Transportation Systems grants. The Committee expects IDOT to fund the

following projects: $750,000 to Lake County for traffic corridor communications systems; $450,000 to DuPage County for traffic signal

coordination; $850,000 for an I–55/Lake Springfield Fixed AntiIcing System; $800,000 to the Village of Bourbonnais for congestion

relief projects; and $150,000 for the city of Marion’s traffic control

project. The Committee further provides $2,000,000 to the city of

Chicago for Intelligent Transportation Systems grants, including

the Cicero Avenue Traveler Information project and the Traffic

Management Center.

NATIONWIDE DIFFERENTIAL GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM

Appropriations, 2002 1 ........................................................................... $6,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 2 ......................................................................... 6,000,000

Committee recommendation 2 ............................................................... (6,000,000)

1Funding derived from limitation on administrative expenses.

2Funding for NDGPS provided within FAA ‘‘facilities and equipment’’ account.

NDGPS.—The Committee recommendation includes $6,000,000

for continued investment in the Nationwide NPGPS Network. The

funding is provided within the FAA’s facilities and equipment account.

79

BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS

(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $31,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 1 ......................................................................... 31,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 31,000,000

1Does not reflect $675,000 requested to cover full funding of Federal retiree costs.

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.

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2002 ......................................................................... $30,000,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ...................................................................... 29,000,000,000

Committee recommendation ............................................................. 32,000,000,000

The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of

$32,000,000,000.

FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2003 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 program provides for the salaries, operating expenses, research funding for the FMCSA. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) amended Section

80

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 45/100 of 1 percent for these purposes.

LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE

Appropriations, 2002 1 ........................................................................... $110,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 (limitation) ....................................................... 117,464,000

Committee recommendation 2 ............................................................... 117,464,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $158,000 pursuant to Public Law 107–87, as amended by Public

Law 107–117. 2 Includes $3,000,000 provided from FHWA’s administrative takedown.

The Committee recommendation provides a total of $117,464,000

for operating expenses and research funding for the FMCSA consistent with the budget request. Of the funds provided,

$110,464,000 is for operating expenses and $7,000,000 is for research and technology initiatives. The recommendation provides

the following adjustments to the budget request:

Share the Road Safely .....................................................................................¥$100,000

Safety is Good Business Program .................................................................. ¥250,000

R&T Information Dissemination .................................................................... ¥150,000

Hazardous Materials Safety and Security ..................................................... ∂500,000

Domestic motor carrier safety.—While FMCSA has moved expeditiously to implement the United States-Mexico cross-border trucking safety provisions, the Committee remains concerned about the

lack of progress that has been made in commercial motor vehicle

safety in recent years. Despite the fact that there has been a nearly

50 percent increase in funding for motor carrier safety activities

since the FMCSA was created in 1999, there has been only a 3.5

percent decrease in the number of fatalities involving large truck

crashes. In fact, more than one out of ten people killed in motor

vehicle incidents are involved in a crash with a large truck even

though large trucks represent a very small percentage of total registered vehicles. Given this record, it calls into question whether

the FMCSA will achieve its 1999 goal of reducing truck deaths and

injuries by 50 percent by 2009.

The Committee reminds FMCSA that the agency’s safety oversight efforts for domestic truck traffic should be equal to, if not

greater than, those for cross-border traffic. The fact that it takes

FMCSA an average of 4 years to complete a rulemaking and that

many rules have not been published by their statutory deadlines is

evidence that the agency has a long way to go in pursuing its safety mission. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the events of September 11th, the Committee urges FMCSA to be particularly attentive to the security risks associated with the commercial driver’s license program and the transportation of hazardous materials as

discussed in greater detail in this report.

Commercial drivers license oversight.—Federal regulations require individuals to carry a commercial driver’s license (CDL) when

operating a commercial motor vehicle weighing in excess of 26,001

pounds, when hauling hazardous materials or when transporting at

least 16 passengers. Over the last decade, the number of CDL holders has doubled to over 10.5 million today and it is estimated that

81

nearly 470,000 new CDLs are issued each year. Since truck travel

volume is expected to increase roughly 20 percent over the next

decade, it is critically important that FMCSA put adequate safety

measures in place to effectively monitor the commercial motor vehicle industry and commercial motor vehicle drivers. The fiscal year

2002 Supplemental Appropriations bill included $17,300,000 for

FMCSA to boost CDL fraud detection and prevention efforts as well

as to conduct background check reviews of CDL drivers who hold

or seek hazardous materials endorsements. These additional funds

will assist FMCSA in its efforts to address the deficiencies in the

CDL licensing and testing program that were outlined in the Inspector General’s May, 2002 report. The Committee notes that the

FMCSA concurred with nearly all of the IG’s recommendations

with the exception of the IG’s recommendation to require covert

procedures for monitoring State and third-party CDL examiners.

Given the expected growth in the number of CDL holders, it is essential that FMCSA conduct timely compliance reviews of state

CDL programs as well as utilize covert monitoring techniques of

State and third-party CDL examiners. As such, the Committee directs FMSCA to adopt a standard that requires covert monitoring

in the menu of oversight activities for State and third-party CDL

examiners.

Hazardous materials transportation.—Every day in the United

States, there are over 800,000 shipments of hazardous materials

ranging from flammable materials and explosives to poisons and

corrosives. The Committee commends FMCSA for completing over

38,000 security sensitivity visits of hazardous materials transportation and other at-risk providers earlier this year. These visits

have served to increase the level of awareness of hazardous materials carriers to terrorist threats and to identify potential security

vulnerabilities for corrective or law enforcement action. However,

the Committee firmly believes that FMCSA must continue to aggressively monitor the safety and security vulnerabilities in the

transportation of hazardous materials since 90 percent of hazardous material shipments occur by truck. The Committee urges

FMCSA to vigorously enforce compliance with Federal hazardous

materials regulations and to encourage States to appropriately utilize the motor carrier safety assistance program for hazardous materials training and enforcement. With regard to hazardous materials safety and security research, the Committee provides

$758,000 which is $500,000 more than the budget request. The additional funds above the budget request shall be used to expand

and expedite the completion of FMCSA’s hazardous materials security risk assessments.

‘‘Safety is Good Business’’ Program.—The Committee has deleted

the funding for this initiative in the motor carrier research program. The Committee believes that the ‘‘Safety is Good Business’’

program should be funded out of FMCSA’s high priority initiatives

program within the motor carrier safety assistance program.

Crash causation study.—The Committee recommends $5,000,000

for the continuation of FMCSA’s comprehensive crash causation

study. The Committee appreciates the complexity of this study

which now involves over 100 Federal, state and contractor support

personnel. Over 450 crashes have been investigated, but many of

82

these have not been completely coded. The Committee understands

that the FMCSA sought out a Transportation Research Board committee to review the first set of large truck crash causation cases

and to make recommendations on what coding changes may be necessary. The Committee reiterates its message from last year that

it is imperative that the results of this study should be made available as soon as possible. The study’s results will assist FMCSA in

setting safety priorities as well as serve as useful tool for Congressional oversight and legislative activities. The Committee directs

FMCSA and NHTSA to submit a letter report to the House and

Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 15, 2003 indicating the study’s progress; the Department’s response to and status of TRB’s recommendations; and, a time schedule for the release

of its initial results.

Share the road safely.—The Committee provides a total of $600,000 for the ‘‘Share the Road Safely’’ program which is designed to educate the motoring public on how to share the road

safely with large trucks and buses. As required by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, $500,000 of the funds provided for this program are transferred from NHTSA’s highway

safety program account. While this program is administered by the

FMCSA, the Committee believes that NHTSA should have input

into the program’s development since NHTSA is the agency with

primary responsibility for the behavioral programs geared toward

passenger car drivers. The Committee urges FMCSA to coordinate

the agency’s ‘‘share the road’’ efforts with NHTSA.

Young driver pilot program.—In February, 2001, the FMCSA requested comments on a proposal that the agency had received to

initiate a pilot program which would waive Federal regulations to

allow individuals between the ages of 18 and 21 to work in truck

driver jobs in interstate commerce. Current Federal safety regulations require that commercial motor vehicle drivers be at least 21

years of age. The Committee is aware that FMCSA has received

comments from state transportation officials and private citizens

opposing this proposal due to safety concerns. Given the fact that

young drivers are overrepresented in motor vehicle crashes, the

Committee is not convinced of the merits of this proposal. Prior to

the approval of such a pilot program, the Committee directs the

FMCSA Administrator to conduct a thorough analysis of the safety

ramifications and whether there’s a genuine shortage of truck drivers to warrant such a waiver of the Federal safety regulations.

Driver record improvements.—Section 204 of the Motor Carrier

Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) requires States to query

the National Driver Register (NDR) and the Commercial Driver’s

License Information System prior to issuing or renewing a motor

vehicle operator’s license. The Committee notes that the rule implementing this provision has yet to be promulgated and would remind FMCSA and NHTSA that each agency shares an equal responsibility for fulfilling the MCSIA requirement. However,

progress on this rule has been stalled because each agency believes

that the other has the lead on the rule’s development. The Committee directs the Secretary to assign either FMCSA or NHTSA as

the lead agency in the rule’s development and urges both agencies

to move forward expeditiously on this rule as other driver record

83

improvements, such as the one-driver, one-record pointer system,

are further developed. In that regard, the Committee directs

NHTSA and FMCSA to conduct an analysis of the costs associated

with the development of a one-driver, one-record pointer system

and the strategic steps necessary for its implementation and submit that analysis to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by June 1, 2003.

Driver research.—Within the funds provided for FMCSA’s research and technology program, the Committee provides $700,000

for the Transportation Research Institute at the George Washington University VA Campus for advanced research on driver

error related to fatigue, inattentiveness and sleep deprivation

through the use of sophisticated in-vehicle monitoring and assistance systems related to vehicle performance. In addition, the Committee has included $250,000 to initiate a separate multidisciplinary driver research program that evaluates cognitive sensory,

environmental, mechanical, and large-scale epidemiologic aspects of

driver behavior in order to identify measures that show promise of

improving safety and reduce the likelihood of serious injury.

NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRAM

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(Liquidation of contract authorization)(Limitation on

obligations)

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................................... $205,896,000 $205,896,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................................... 190,000,000 190,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................................... 190,000,000 190,000,000

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 $190,000,000 in liquidating cash for

this program consistent with the authorized contract activity level.

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

The Committee recommends a $190,000,000 limitation on obligations for motor carrier safety grants. This is the level authorized

84

under the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, which

amended TEA21.

Truck driver training program.—Within the funds provided for

FMCSA’s high priority initiative program, the Committee provides $700,000 for the development of a concrete skid pad at Lewis-Clark

State College North Lewiston Training Facility. The project would

enable the creation of controlled ‘‘adverse’’ weather situations, including ice and rain, as well as faulty braking systems, tire blowouts, and anti-skid equipment failure, as part of the Commercial

Drivers License Training program, which provides safety training

for bus and commercial motor vehicle drivers.

Highway watch program.—Within the funds provided for

FMCSA’s high priority initiative program, the Committee provides $1,000,000 for the continuation of the Highway Watch program.

The Highway Watch program trains professional truck drivers to

recognize and report a variety of incidents on the Nation’s highways. As the program is expanded to reach an increasing number

of truck drivers, the Committee urges that a security component be

included in the training to help truck drivers better identify potential security threats.

Operation respond.—Within the funds provided for FMCSA’s

high priority initiatives, the Committee includes $1,000,000 to design, build, and demonstrate the benefits of a seamless hazardous

materials incident detection, management, and response system,

including the expansion of the Operation Respond network of emergency responders and by linking this network with tracking and

automatic crash notification technologies. The Committee urges

that, working with the private sector, these funds be used to establish a national first responder emergency services network and to

accelerate deployment of Operation Respond software.

BORDER ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $25,866,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 59,967,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1 59,967,000

1Funded under FHWA administrative takedown.

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), enacted in

1993, anticipated the initiation of cross-border trucking shipments

between the United States and Mexico by December, 1995. The

previous Administration made a specific decision not to allow Mexico-domiciled motor carriers to transport cross-border shipments beyond a limited commercial zone into the United States due to concerns over the safety of the Mexican trucking fleet. In February,

2001, an Arbitral Panel issued a finding that the United States

was out of compliance with NAFTA and could not bar all Mexican

applicants from entering the United States. However, the Panel

clearly stipulated 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.

Last year, the Committee dedicated a significant amount of time

and effort to the safety concerns associated with the initiation of

cross-border trucking shipments between the United States and

85

Mexico when the Administration announced its intention to open

the border by January, 2002. The fiscal year 2002 Transportation

Appropriations Act included a general provision which required a

number of actions by the Secretary of Transportation, the Federal

Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) and the Inspector

General (IG) prior to the opening of the United States-Mexico border to commercial vehicle traffic beyond the commercial zone. A

key provision was the requirement that the Inspector General conduct a comprehensive review of border operations to verify whether

safety requirements are in place. The Inspector General’s report of

June 25, 2002 states that the FMCSA has made measured progress

toward meeting the Act’s requirements to hire and train inspectors;

establish inspection facilities; and develop safety processes and procedures for Mexican long-haul carriers.

However, the IG’s report indicates that there are remaining

issues of concern and the Administration must do more work before

the border is open. Two areas that need additional attention are

law enforcement authority’s access to databases and the ability of

States to prosecute Mexican trucks operating in violation of U.S.

law. Specifically, the IG’s report states that Mexico’s commercial

driver’s license (CDL) and vehicle registration databases are sufficiently accurate and integrated into databases. However, 6 of the

25 United States-Mexico border crossings do not have adequate access to these databases to verify licenses, registration, operating

authority or insurance. Additionally, the Transportation Act required the IG to verify that measures are in place to enable U.S.

law enforcement authorities to ensure the effective enforcement

and monitoring of Mexican motor carriers according to U.S. law.

The IG’s report points out only two States—Arizona and California—have enacted legislation authorizing their enforcement personnel to take action when they encounter a vehicle operating

without authority. This means that 48 States lack any law to put

out-of-service or penalize large trucks that are caught operating

without Federal operating authority. The Committee strongly believes that this safety gap needs to be closed before the border is

open. The Committee was pleased at the June 27, 2002 oversight

hearing to receive the Secretary of Transportation’s commitment to

include operating authority violations among the safety criteria for

placing vehicles out of service and expects this action to be taken

before the border is open.

Finally, Section 350 of the fiscal year 2002 Transportation Appropriations Act requires that, prior to the opening of the United

States-Mexico border to commercial vehicle traffic, the Secretary of

Transportation must certify in writing in a manner addressing the

IG’s findings a verification that opening the border does not pose

an unacceptable safety risk to the American public. Once the border is open, the full impact of these safety requirements can be

evaluated as to whether they are sufficient. The Committee intends

to continue to closely monitor the implementation of the United

States-Mexico cross-border trucking provisions to ensure that safety is not compromised. The Committee has included a general provision continuing the cross-border safety provisions included in the

2002 Transportation Appropriations Act.

86

The Committee recommends $41,967,000 for Federal border enforcement staffing and operations and $18,000,000 for State operations grants to the southern border States.

Additional border enforcement funding is provided in this bill in- cluding $8,250,000 for State operations grants under the National

Motor Carrier Safety Program, and $47,000,000 for inspection station construction under the Federal Highway Administrator’s administrative takedown.

NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2003 PROGRAM

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

was established as a separate organizational entity in the Department of Transportation in March 1970. It succeeded the National

Highway Safety Bureau, which previously had administered traffic

and highway safety functions as an organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration.

The agency’s current programs are authorized in four major

laws: (1) the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, (chapter 301 of title 49, U.S.C.); (2) the Highway Safety Act, (chapter 4

of title 23, U.S.C.); (3) the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings (MVICSA) Act, (Part C of subtitle VI of title 49, U.S.C.), and

(4) the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21).

The first law provides for the establishment and enforcement of

safety standards for vehicles and associated equipment and the

conduct of supporting research, including the acquisition of required testing facilities and the operation of the national driver

register (NDR). Discrete authorizations were subsequently established for the NDR under the National Driver Register Act of 1982.

The second law provides for coordinated national highway safety

programs (section 402) to be carried out by the States and for highway safety research, development, and demonstration programs

(section 403). The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100– 690) authorized a new drunk driving prevention program (section

410) to make grants to States to implement and enforce drunk

driving prevention programs.

The third law (MVICSA) provides for the establishment of lowspeed collision bumper standards, consumer information activities,

diagnostic inspection demonstration projects, automobile content

labeling, and odometer regulations. An amendment to this law established the Secretary’s responsibility, which was delegated to

NHTSA, for the administration of mandatory automotive fuel economy standards. A 1992 amendment to the MVICSA established

automobile content labeling requirements.

The fourth law (TEA21) reauthorizes the full range of NHTSA

programs and enacts a number of new initiatives. These include:

safety incentives to prevent operation of motor vehicles by intoxicated persons (section 163 of title 23 U.S.C.); seat belt incentive

grants (section 157 of title 23 U.S.C.); occupant protection incentive

grants (section 405); and highway safety data improvement incentive grant program (section 411). TEA21 also reauthorized highway

safety research, development and demonstration programs (section

403) to include research measures that may deter drugged driving,

87

educate the motoring public on how to share the road safely with

commercial motor vehicles, and provide vehicle pursuit training for

police. Finally, TEA21 adopts a number of new motor vehicle safety

and information provisions, including rulemaking directions for improving air bag crash protection systems, lobbying restrictions, exemptions from the odometer requirements for classes or categories

of vehicles the Secretary deems appropriate, and adjustments to

the automobile domestic content labeling requirements.

In 2000, the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability,

and Documentation (TREAD) Act amended the National Traffic

and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in numerous respects and enacted

many new initiatives. These consist of a number of new motor vehicle safety and information provisions, including a requirement that

manufacturers give NHTSA notice of safety recalls or safety campaigns in foreign countries involving motor vehicles or items of

motor vehicle equipment that are identical or substantially similar

to vehicles or equipment in the United States; higher civil penalties

for violations of the law; a criminal penalty for violations of the

law’s reporting requirements; and a number of rulemaking directions that include developing a dynamic rollover test for light duty

vehicles, updating the tire safety and labeling standards, improving

the safety of child restraints, and establishing a child restraint

safety rating consumer information program.

The following table summarizes the Committee recommendations:

Program Fiscal year 2002

enacted

Fiscal year 2003

estimate

Committee recommendation

Operations and research ..................................................................... $200,264,000 $200,444,508 $215,000,000

National driver register (HTF) .............................................................. (2,000,000) (2,000,000) (2,000,000)

Highway traffic safety grants (firewall) .............................................. 223,000,000 225,000,000 225,000,000

Total ........................................................................................ 423,264,000 425,444,508 440,000,000

OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH

(INCLUDING HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

General Fund Trust Fund Total

Appropriations, 2002 ........................................................................... $126,264,000 $74,000,000 $200,264,000

Budget estimate, 2003 1 ...................................................................... 126,444,508 74,000,000 200,444,508

Committee recommendation ................................................................ 141,000,000 74,000,000 215,000,000

1 Excludes 4,437,000 for CSRS/FEHB accurals.

For fiscal year 2003, 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.

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

$130,881,000 for activities related to sections 30104 and 32102 of

title 49. This funding is derived from the general fund and is subject to appropriations.

88

The accompanying bill provides appropriations totaling $215,000,000 to be distributed as follows:

Committee

Program recommendation

Salaries and benefits ............................................................................. $63,328,000

Travel ...................................................................................................... 1,324,000

Operating expenses ............................................................................... 22,834,000

Contract Programs:

Safety performance ......................................................................... 10,393,000

Safety assurance ............................................................................. 15,760,000

Highway safety ............................................................................... 52,458,000

Research and analysis .................................................................... 59,396,000

General administration .................................................................. 657,000

Grant administration reimbursement .................................................. ¥11,150,000

Total ............................................................................................. 215,000,000

OPERATING EXPENSES

Workforce planning and development.—NHTSA established this

program in fiscal year 2001 in an effort to encourage college students to enter into the fields of engineering, research, science and

technology, vehicle safety and injury. The Committee recognizes

the agency’s desire to build a base of employees for future employment but would note that the challenges of attrition in the transportation workforce are not unique to NHTSA. The Committee believes that this type of workforce planning should be done throughout the entire Department of Transportation through the coordination of the office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration. The

Committee includes $300,000 within the NHTSA budget for a more

measured initiative in this area.

Contract execution delays.—The Committee is aware that there

continue to be excessive delays in the timely execution of NHTSA

contracts. All too frequently, contract recipients have had to wait

for several months before Federal funds are granted. The Committee expects greater attention to this area and insists that once

a contract has been awarded that it should be executed in a timely

fashion. The Committee directs the NHTSA Administrator to conduct a thorough review of the agency’s contracting procedures and

to take appropriate steps to eliminate any unnecessary delays.

SAFETY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

Passenger vehicle tire traction.—The Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation Act of 2000

(TREAD) mandated the Secretary to strengthen the Federal standards governing tire safety performance. NHTSA issued a proposed

rulemaking on March 5, 2002, to revise and update its tire safety

standards. The proposed rule addresses tire safety from the vantage point of reducing the chances of tire failure principally by increasing tire resistance to heat and high speed operation. Although

NHTSA has a consumer information program, the Uniform Tire

Quality Grading System, which assigns traction ratings to tires

marketed in the United States, there is no Federal standard requiring acceptable levels of tire adhesion or traction, especially for

passenger vehicles operating on wet road surfaces. As NHTSA prepares its final rule on tire safety performance, the Committee encourages NHTSA to consider including standards for tire performVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:06 Aug 01, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX pfrm11 PsN: SR224
89

ance on wet road surfaces. Absent such inclusion, the Committee

directs NHTSA to send a letter to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations explaining why wet road tire performance

standards were not included.

SAFETY ASSURANCE

Defect information system.—NHTSA’s Office of Defect Investigation is in the process of replacing its current defect database with

a new information system. When fully operational, this new system, which is being developed by the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, will store consumer complaints as well as

the early warning data as required by the TREAD Act. The Inspector General issued a report earlier this year which raised concerns

about whether this new information system can be successfully implemented on-time and within the estimated $5,000,000 budget.

The Committee believes that NHTSA should be attentive to the

concerns raised by the IG and directs NHTSA to provide a letter

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations which details the current schedule and cost estimate for this system.

HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS

The Committee recommends the following adjustments to the

budget request:

Occupant protection: Outreach initiatives to increase belt use ......... ∂$3,500,000

Emergency medical services ................................................................. ∂1,000,000

Impaired driving:

Judicial/prosecutorial initiative ..................................................... ∂1,500,000

Repeat offender tracking model .................................................... ∂3,000,000

Target population outreach ........................................................... ∂1,500,000

Motorcycle safety ................................................................................... ∂300,000

Drugs, driving and youth ...................................................................... ∂295,000

Highway safety research ....................................................................... ∂200,000

National occupant protection program.—The stated objectives of

NHTSA’s occupant protection program are to increase seat belt use

and decrease the number of child occupant fatalities. Over the last

several years, NHTSA has set aggressive goals for achieving seat

belt use across the nation since each percentage point increase in

seat belt use saves approximately 226 lives and prevents over 3,700

injuries each year. NHTSA’s seat belt goal in 2001 was 86 percent

and while seat belt use reached an all-time high of 73 percent, the

agency still fell far short of its national goal. The Committee is disappointed that NHTSA’s seat belt goal dropped from 87 percent in

2002 to 78 percent in 2003 and that the agency’s fiscal year 2003

budget cut its core safety program dedicated to national occupant

protection by 14 percent. The Committee strongly believes that

NHTSA must continue to be vigilant and creative in its efforts to

increase national seat belt use particularly for those targeted

groups that are high-risk and often difficult to reach. The Committee recommends $14,683,000 for NHTSA’s occupant protection

efforts which is $3,500,000 more than the President’s budget request. The Committee directs that these additional funds be used

to continue the outreach activities toward minority populations,

teens and rural populations. To further supplement NHTSA’s overall seat belt efforts, the Committee has included bill language to

90

continue the public service message program that was started in

fiscal year 2002. A more detailed discussion of this program is included in the NHTSA bill language section of this report.

Impaired driving.—The Committee is very concerned about the

lack of progress that is being made to reduce the number of alcohol-related motor vehicle fatalities. In 2000, there were 16,653 alcohol-related fatalities which was 5.4 percent more than 1999 and

represented the largest percentage increase on record. These alcohol-related crashes also cause an estimated 300,000 injuries and

cost society over $45,000,000,000 every year. Unfortunately, the

preliminary estimates for 2001 indicate there was virtually no reduction in the number of alcohol-related fatalities. At the Committee’s hearing on highway safety on February 27, 2002, witnesses

testified that the progress in meeting national goals to reduce alcohol-impaired driving has stalled in recent years. Again, as in the

case of NHTSA’s occupant protection program, the fiscal year 2003

budget reduced NHTSA’s impaired driving core program by 22 percent at a time when alcohol-related fatalities are increasing. The

Committee recommends $15,576,000 for NHTSA’s impaired driving program which is $6,000,000 more than the President’s budget request.

Judicial and prosecutorial awareness.—Within the funds provided for NHTSA’s impaired driving program, the Committee pro- vides $1,500,000 to improve prosecutorial and judicial actions to

combat alcohol-impaired driving. A review of past NHTSA expenditures to combat impaired driving revealed that the agency has

dedicated only a small portion of Section 403 funds to support the

role of prosecutors and judges in dealing with impaired drivers.

The Committee directs the Secretary of Transportation, in cooperation with the Attorney General, to conduct a detailed analysis designed to strengthen Federal policies and laws intended to combat

alcohol-impaired driving and document the results and recommendations. This report should identify best strategies for reducing obstacles to obtaining convictions of alcohol-impaired driving and strategies to help prosecutors and judges apply sanctions

in a consistent manner. The report should also emphasize strategies to reduce plea bargaining, diversion or deferral programs, and

other means used by offenders to avoid any permanent record of an

alcohol-related offense. In particular, the analysis should provide

guidance for improving judicial and prosecutorial training, outreach, and adherence to state standards of conduct. The Committee

directs NHTSA to submit this report to the Senate and House

Committees on Appropriations by October 1, 2003.

Tracking repeat offenders.—The Committee includes $3,000,000

within NHTSA’s impaired driving program to expedite the development and expand the testing of the model ‘‘Driver History Information Records System for Impaired Driving.’’ This tracking system is

designed to assist States and local communities exchange timely information about prior impaired driving offenses and to transmit

conviction and license suspension notices among law enforcement

officials, the courts and driver licensing agencies.

Impaired driving and targeted populations.—The Committee is

concerned that there continues to be certain segments of the population that are over represented in alcohol-related motor vehicle

91

crashes. For example, male drivers between the ages of 21 and 34

represent the highest percentage of alcohol-related fatalities. The

Committee strongly believes that NHTSA must continue to vigorously pursue strategies to reduce impaired driving among the age

groups and ethnic populations that represent the highest risk.

Within the funds provided for NHTSA’s impaired driving program, the Committee includes $1,500,000 to increase the outreach efforts

with these targeted populations.

Highway safety research.—The Committee includes $7,298,000

for NHTSA’s highway safety research program, an increase of $200,000 above the President’s budget request. Within the funds provided, the Committee includes $200,000 to initiate research on

advanced alcohol ignition interlock systems. A key component of

this research is the development of advanced technologies for use

in the steering wheel that could detect blood alcohol levels.

Drugs, driving and youth.—The Committee recommendation includes $1,437,000 for NHTSA’s drugs, driving and youth program efforts, an increase of $295,000 over the President’s budget. The

Committee is concerned about the data which indicates that alcohol

and drug use is increasing among teenagers. Since this youth population is expected to increase nearly 5 percent by the year 2005, the

Committee believes it is particularly important for NHTSA to boost

its impaired driving youth prevention and education activities. The

Committee is aware of programs such as the ‘‘Protecting You, Protecting Me’’ curriculum which is designed to educate children in

grades 1 through 5 about the dangers of riding in a car with an

impaired driver and underage alcohol consumption. The Committee

directs NHTSA to utilize these additional funds to develop a similar type of program directed toward teenager drivers.

Emergency medical services.—The Committee recommends

$3,189,000 for emergency medical services, which is $1,000,000

more than the President’s budget request. Within the funds pro- vided, the Committee includes $1,000,000 to continue training EMS

personnel in delivering pre-hospital care to patients with traumatic

brain injuries. Since this program’s inception in 1998, it is estimated that nearly 31 states will have received the training and

educational material and over 1,600 in-state instructors will have

received training. The Committee urges NHTSA to continue this

national rollout with the Brain Trauma Foundation and its Centers

of Excellence. Just as it is important for EMS personnel to receive

proper training to care for the critically injured, it is equally important that first responders have the tools necessary to locate the injured as quickly as possible. There have been a number of highly

publicized cases of crash victims who were stranded for extended

periods of time because their vehicles were not easily located. Advanced location technology associated with wireless E 9–1–1 can

assist law enforcement and EMS personnel in reaching victims

quickly. The Committee notes that NHTSA’s fiscal year 2003 budget includes plans to develop a national clearinghouse and best practices document for State implementation of wireless E 9–1–1. As

these implementation tools are developed, the Committee encourages NHTSA to consult with a broad range of EMS providers, law

enforcement officials, wireless technology providers and the appropriate Federal and State agencies.

92

Motorcycle safety.—The Committee provides $945,000 for

NHTSA’s motorcycle safety efforts which represents a $300,000 increase over the President’s budget. The Committee is concerned

about the upward trend in the number of motorcycle fatalities.

From 1999 to 2000, motorcycle fatalities rose by 15 percent and the

preliminary estimates for 2001 indicate that fatalities rose by another 7.2 percent over 2000. Since new unit sales of on-highway

motorcycles have increased in recent years, rider training programs

have not been able to keep pace. In December 2000, NHTSA assembled a technical working group comprised of law enforcement,

health care, insurance and motorcycle organizations to assist in the

development of the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety. The

Committee has provided increased funding to further assist in the

implementation of the Agenda’s urgent and essential recommendations. In particular, the Committee urges NHTSA to coordinate

with the motorcycle community to focus these additional resources

toward strategies which will enhance rider crash avoidance skills

and improve motorcycle conspicuity.

RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS

National Automotive Sampling System.—The Committee pro- vides $11,570,000 for the National Automotive Sampling System

(NASS), an increase of $1,000,000 over the President’s budget request. The NASS General Estimates System data assists in assessing the trend and magnitude of the crash situation in this country,

and the NASS Crashworthiness Data System provides more indepth and descriptive data which allows NHTSA to quantify the relationships between the occupants and vehicles in the real-world

crash environment. The Committee directs NHTSA to utilize the

additional funds to expand the NASS database with a particular

focus on child safety seat and tire-related data.

Biomechanical research.—The Committee provides a total of $14,954,000 for biomechanics research which is $1,000,000 more

than the President’s budget request. The Committee’s recommendation includes necessary resources for the continued research of the

Crash Injury Research and Engineering Network program. In addition, within the funds provided, the Committee includes $2,000,000

to continue research related to traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries caused by motor vehicle, motorcycle, and bicycle accidents at

the Southern Consortium for Injury Biomechanics.

Tire safety research.—The Committee recommendation includes

$375,000 in NHTSA’s pneumatic tire research program for the

Mercer Engineering Research Center to initiate research on the relationships between tire age, condition driven, load and pressure

and the effects on tire safety.

Built-in child restraints.—Section 13(h) of the TREAD Act required NHTSA to conduct a study on the use and effectiveness of

automobile booster seats for children. To date, NHTSA has yet to

release this study which had a statutory deadline of November 1st,

2001. The pending study is expected to compare the safety benefits

of existing booster systems to the safety provided to children who

are using lap and shoulder belts alone. The Committee urges

NHTSA to issue the results of the booster seat study without delay,

however, the Committee believes that a review of integrated or

93

built-in child restraints is also warranted. The Committee provides

$1,000,000 within NHTSA’s safety systems research program to

conduct an evaluation of integrated or built-in child safety systems.

The evaluation should include the safety and correctness of fit for

the child; the availability of testing data on the system and vehicle

in which it will be used; compatibility with different makes and

models; cost-effectiveness in mass production for consumers; ease of

use and relative availability to children riding in motor vehicles;

and benefits of built-in seats to increasing compliance with State

child occupant restraint laws. The Committee directs NHTSA to

submit the results of this supplementary study to the House and

Senate Committees on Appropriations by October 1, 2003.

Heavy vehicle research.—Within the funds provided for heavy vehicle research, the Committee includes $1,000,000 for the National

Transportation Research Center in Tennessee to continue to conduct broad-based laboratory-to-roadside research into heavy vehicle

safety issues.

NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

The National Driver Register (NDRS) 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.

In addition, the Committee reminds NHTSA that the direction

given to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regarding the implementation of Section 204 of the Motor Carrier Safety

Improvement Act and the development of a one-driver, one-record

pointer system is equally applicable to NHTSA. The Committee expects both agencies to work together on these initiatives without

further delay.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $223,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 225,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 225,000,000

For fiscal year 2003 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century authorized the following State grant programs: Highway

Safety Program, the Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures

94

Incentive Grant Program and the Occupant Protection Incentive

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 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 $225,000,000 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 2002 enactedFiscal year 2003 estimateCommittee recommendation

Highway safety programs ................................................................ $160,000,000 $165,000,000 $165,000,000

Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants ......................... 38,000,000 40,000,000 40,000,000

Occupant protection incentive grants ............................................. 15,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000

State highway safety data grants ................................................... 10,000,000 ........................... ..........................

Total .................................................................................... 223,000,000 225,000,000 225,000,000

BILL LANGUAGE

Public safety messages.—The bill contains a provision (sec. 340)

extending the authority for States to use traffic safety grant funds

under Section 402 to produce and place highway safety public service messages in television, radio, cinema, print media and on the

Internet. This year, the Committee continues a provision that was

included in the fiscal year 2002 bill which designated safety belt

use innovative grant funds to be used for public safety messages

and evaluation to support the Operation ABC (America Buckles up

Children) Mobilizations that are conducted each year in May and

November. Most of these funds were used to support State highvisibility ‘‘Click It or Ticket’’ enforcement programs in May, 2002.

The preliminary results from the May 2002 initiative show continued success in achieving measurable increases in seat belt use. The

average percentage increase in seat belt use for those States utilizing paid advertising in the May mobilization initiative was 7.6

95

percent. Notwithstanding the Administration’s opposition to this

initiative, the Committee does commend the NHTSA Administrator

for his leadership in this program’s successful execution.

The Committee believes that this program must be continued

and expanded in order to achieve its full potential in saving lives

and reducing injuries. Just as high visibility enforcement programs

have proven to be effective in increasing seat belt use, research has

also concluded that sobriety checkpoints are highly effective in reducing alcohol-related traffic fatalities and injuries. NHTSA’s own

survey has indicated that 4 out of 5 Americans support increased

enforcement and tougher laws to protect themselves and their families from impaired drivers. The Committee has included bill language providing $20,000,000 from seat belt and impaired driving

grant programs to be used as directed by the NHTSA Administrator for broadcast advertising to support national law enforcement mobilizations aimed at increasing seat belt use and controlling impaired driving. It is the Committee’s intent that these funds

support at least two national mobilizations during the year, and

that NHTSA work on these initiatives with the States and nonprofit safety organizations that have been active in conducting recent mobilizations. Further, the Committee expects NHTSA to

work with the States to ensure that they have adequate resources

for impaired driving enforcement activities as part of the mobilizations.

FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2003 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 $1,422,589,000 for the activities of

the Federal Railroad Administration for fiscal year 2003. This is

$711,324,000 more than the budget request.

The following table summarizes the Committee recommendations:

Program

Fiscal year—

Committee recommendation 2002 enacted 2003 budget

estimate

Safety and operations 123 ............................................................. $110,857,000 $73,264,000 $118,264,000

New user fee revenue for safety and operations .......................... ............................ 45,000,000 ............................

Railroad research and development .............................................. 29,000,000 14,325,000 29,325,000

New user fee revenue for railroad research and development ..... ............................ 14,000,000 ............................

Next generation high-speed rail .................................................... 32,300,000 23,200,000 30,000,000

96

Program

Fiscal year—

Committee recommendation 2002 enacted 2003 budget

estimate

Alaska railroad rehabilitation 4 ...................................................... 20,000,000 ............................ 25,000,000

Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation 5 ................... 826,478,000 521,476,000 1,200,000,000

Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project ................................ 20,000,000 20,000,000 20,000,000

Amtrak Reform Council .................................................................. 225,000 ............................ ............................

Total budgetary resources ................................................ 1,038,633,000 711,265,000 1,422,589,000

1 Does not include reductions of $175,000 pursuant to section 349 of Public Law 107–87 and $150,000 pursuant to section 1106 of Public Law 107–117 for fiscal year 2002. 2 Does not include supplemental funding of $6,000,000 pursuant to Public Law 107–117 for emergency expenses to respond to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. 3 Fiscal year 2003 budget estimate excludes $4,625,000 in CSRS retirement and FEHB accruals.

4 Fiscal year 2002 excludes $10,200,000 transferred from USAF.

5 Includes $100,000,000 from Public Law 107–117 and $205,000,000 from the 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for further recovery

from and response to terrorist Attacks on the United States.

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS

Appropriations, 2002 1 2 ......................................................................... $110,857,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 73,264,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 118,264,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $175,000 pursuant to section 349 of Public Law 107–87 and

$150,000 pursuant to section 1106 of Public Law 107–117. 2Does not include supplemental funding of $6,000,000 pursuant to Public Law 107–117 for

emergency expenses to respond to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the U.S.

The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA rail

safety activities and all other administrative and operating activities related to staff and programs.

Inspector workforce.—The Committee has approved the President’s request for 10 additional full time equivalent (FTE) staff

years and 20 additional positions which will bring FRA’s inspector

workforce to a total of 444 FTEs. The Committee includes

$1,393,000 to fund 6 additional track inspector FTEs and 4 additional operating practice inspector FTEs. Given the recent increases in track-caused accidents and derailments as well as

human-factor caused accidents, the Committee urges FRA to move

rapidly to fill these positions.

Highway-railroad grade crossing safety.—The Committee notes

that the Department has either completed or made substantial

progress on most of the actions specified in its strategic action plan

to improve safety at highway-railroad grade crossings. In view of

the need to continue progress in this area, the Committee directs

the Secretary of Transportation to submit with the fiscal year 2004

budget request a new action plan outlining specific efforts to be

pursued by FRA, FHWA, FMCSA, NHTSA and the ITS Joint Program Office to improve safety at both public and private crossings.

Positive train control.—The Committee agrees with the National

Transportation Safety Board that the current pace of development

and implementation of collision avoidance technologies is inadequate. No plan for industry-wide integration has been developed.

Progress has been particularly slow along rail lines that primarily

serve freight carriers, and even those lines with significant passenger traffic remain largely unprotected today—some 12 years

after positive train control was first placed on the Safety Board’s ‘‘Most Wanted’’ list. The Committee directs FRA to submit an updated economic analysis of the costs and benefits of PTC and related systems that takes into account advances in technology, and

97

systems savings to carriers and shippers as well as other cost savings that might be realized by prioritized deployment of these systems, especially along lines that might mix freight and passenger

trains. That analysis should be submitted as a letter report to both

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by October 1,

2003.

Safety assurance and compliance program (SACP).—In 1997,

FRA began the implementation of the Safety Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP) which is a systems-based approach to

safety inspection and is designed to help maximize FRA’s safety inspection efforts. With over 220,000 miles of railroad operated by

the nation’s Class I, regional and local freight railroads, the Committee believes it is imperative that FRA continue to utilize SACP

as well as traditional methods of inspection. The Committee directs

FRA to provide a status report by April 1, 2003 to the House and

Senate Committees on Appropriations which summarizes FRA’s

SACP activities in fiscal year 2002 along with the agency’s safety

audit plans for fiscal year 2003.

SAFETY AND OPERATIONS USER FEES

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. ...........................

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... ($45,000,000)

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ...........................

User fees.—The Committee denies the Administration’s legislative proposal to impose safety user fees on FRA safety and operations services.

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $29,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 14,325,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 29,325,000

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 $29,325,000 for

railroad research and development, $15,000,000 more than the administration’s requested level.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommends the following funding levels for the

Railroad research and development programs:

Railroad System Issues ......................................................................... $3,225,000

Human Factors ...................................................................................... 3,478,000

Rolling Stock and Components ............................................................. 2,487,000

Track and Structures ............................................................................ 5,225,000

Track and Train Interaction ................................................................. 3,350,000

Train Control ......................................................................................... 1,250,000

Grade Crossings ..................................................................................... 1,435,000

Hazardous Materials Transportation ................................................... 1,000,000

Train Occupant Protection .................................................................... 6,450,000

R&D Facilities and Test Equipment .................................................... 1,425,000

Track and Structures.—The Committee provides $5,225,000 for

FRA’s track and structures research efforts. Within the funds proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:06 Aug 01, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX pfrm11 PsN: SR224
98

vided, the Committee includes $1,000,000 to continue the development of the Integrated Railway Remote Information Service

(InteRRIS) which is public-private demonstration program which

utilizes defect detectors across North America. InteRRIS is an

internet-based system designed to aggregate, interrogate and store

data from these field-deployed detector systems. These additional

funds will provide enhancements to FRA’s National Rail Corridor

Car Performance Database to make it web accessible and generate

new queries to support any analysis of the data for improving safety and predictive maintenance. The Committee also includes

$2,000,000 for Marshall University and the University of Nebraska’s development and testing of a track stability data processing

and feedback system for track safety.

Freight congestion study.—The Committee is aware of continued

railroad-freight congestion issues in the Chicago, Illinois region. It

can take 2 days or more to move freight through the region, often

times at train speeds averaging between 6.8 and 12 m.p.h. Blocked

crossings also contribute to this congestion. More than 37,500 rail

freight cars move through the region daily across nearly 2,000 atgrade railroad crossings and to 26 intermodal yards. The Committee directs the Federal Railroad Administrator to work with the

Chicago Transportation Coordination Office and communities in

the Chicago region, including the city of Chicago, to compile and

publish a periodic measure of the impact of rail operations in the

area. This shall also include the status of improvement projects undertaken by the railroads to relieve congestion. This information

should translate operational reports to reflect community impacts

of blocked crossings and idling locomotives/trains. These reports

shall be submitted on a quarterly basis. The administrator should

also expand the number of monitored crossings in the Chicago region to measure the full extent of block railroad crossings, including using event recorders and/or remote monitors to collect data indicating the exact times grade crossing gates are closed and the

length of time they remain closed. The administrator should report

to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations the status

of these efforts no later than 120 days after enactment.

RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT USER FEES

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. ............................

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... ($14,000,000)

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ...........................

User fees.—The Committee denies the Administration’s legislative proposal to impose user fees on FRA’s railroad research and

development activities.

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 2003.

99

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, 2002 ............................................................................. $32,200,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 23,200,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 30,000,000

The Committee has provided $30,000,000 in general fund appropriations for the High-Speed Ground Transportation [HSGT] Program, $6,800,000 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 rail corridors throughout the country.

The Committee recommends the following funding levels for the

Next Generation High-Speed Rail Programs:

High-speed train control systems ......................................................... $5,000,000

High-speed non-electric locomotives ..................................................... 5,300,000

Grade crossing hazard mitigation/Low-cost innovative technologies 3,900,000

Track and structures technology .......................................................... 1,200,000

Corridor planning .................................................................................. 9,100,000

Magnetic levitation ................................................................................ 5,500,000

High-speed train control systems.—The Committee has provided

a total of $5,000,000 for the North American Joint PTC project.

Grade crossing hazard mitigation/low-cost innovative technologies.—The Committee recommends $3,900,000 for grade crossing hazard mitigation and low-cost innovative technology initiatives.

Within the funds provided, the Committee includes the following

allocations:

North Carolina Sealed Corridor Initiative ........................................... $700,000

Illinois Rail-Grade crossing safety program ........................................ 800,000

State of Vermont hazard elimination ................................................... 500,000

Corridor planning.—The Committee includes $9,100,000 for passenger rail corridor planning. Within the funds provided, the Committee includes the following allocations:

Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor, NC ............................................ $1,000,000

California high-speed rail ..................................................................... 2,000,000

Florida high-speed rail .......................................................................... 3,850,000

Gulf Coast high-speed rail corridor ...................................................... 800,000

Seattle-Everett corridor study .............................................................. 750,000

Las Vegas-Los Angeles high-speed study ............................................ 200,000

Northern New England corridor, VT ................................................... 500,000

Seattle-Everett, Washington Rail Corridor Study.—The Committee provides $750,000 to conduct a corridor planning study of

track capacity and utilization by freight, commuter and intercity

rail services in the Seattle-Everett portion of the Pacific Northwest

100

High Speed Rail Corridor and the environmental challenges that

would accompany expansion of that track capacity.

Las Vegas-Los Angeles study.—The Committee provides $200,000

to conduct a rail capacity and ridership analysis for high-speed rail

service between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. The study will assess

existing capacity along the route; identify potential improvements

to increase capacity and reduce trip times; conduct preliminary engineering and assess station requirements.

Magnetic levitation transportation.—A total of $5,500,000 has

been provided for magnetic levitation activities to be distributed as

follows:

Washington-Baltimore, MD: Environmental studies .......................... $500,000

Nevada-California: Environmental impact studies, design and engineering ................................................................................................ 2,000,000

Greensburgh-Pittsburgh, PA: Environmental impact study .............. 2,000,000

Southern California Maglev environmental study and planning ...... 1,000,000

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 LaCrosse, WI ........................................................................................... 500,000

Pacific Northwest high-speed rail corridor .......................................... 1,500,000

ALASKA RAILROAD REHABILITATION

Appropriations, 2002 1 ........................................................................... $20,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... ...........................

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 25,000,000

1 Excludes $10,200,000 transferred from USAF pursuant to section 8062 of Public Law 107– 117.

The Committee has included a total of $25,000,000 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.

GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

(AMTRAK)

Appropriations, 2002 1 ........................................................................... $831,476,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 521,476,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 1,200,000,000

1 Includes supplemental funding of $105,000,000 pursuant to Public Law 107–117 and

$205,000,000 pursuant to the Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

For fiscal year 2003, the administration has requested an appropriation of $521,476,000. The amount requested by the administration is $310,000,000 or 37 percent less than the amount appropriated to Amtrak for fiscal year 2002. Separately, Amtrak’s Board

of Directors has submitted a budget request for $1,200,000,000 for

101

fiscal year 2003, an increase of $368,524,000 or 44 percent more

than the fiscal year 2002 comparable level.

In two separate hearings before the Committee, both Amtrak’s

current and former Chief Executive Officer testified that receiving

a Federal appropriation at the level sought by the administration

for fiscal year 2003 will cause the railroad to go bankrupt and terminate all rail service at the beginning of the year. When invited

to do so, both the Deputy Secretary of Transportation and the Federal Railroad Administrator declined to refute the observations of

Amtrak’s senior managers on that question.

Status of authorizing legislation.—The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (ARAA), Public Law 105–134, authorized

annual appropriations totaling $5,200,000,000 over a 5 year period

ending in fiscal year 2002. Amtrak received approximately

$2,230,000,000 of the $5,200,000,000 authorized during that period.

Amtrak remains unauthorized for fiscal year 2003. However,

both the House authorizing subcommittee and the Senate authorizing committee have reported reauthorization legislation during

this congressional session. The Senate committee’s reauthorization

bill, which was ordered reported by the Commerce Committee by

a vote of 20 to 3, is currently pending on the Senate calendar. For

Amtrak, that bill authorizes a total of $14,991,000,000 over 5 years

including an authorization of $3,930,000,000 for fiscal year 2003.

Shortly after the time when the Secretary of Transportation

joined the Amtrak Board of Directors, he publicly called on the

Congress to move out quickly and enact legislation reauthorizing

Amtrak. Now, some 13 months later, the Secretary has yet to submit his own legislative proposal for Amtrak’s reauthorization.

While the Secretary did make a speech on the morning of June 20,

2002 outlining the ‘‘principals’’ governing the administration’s Amtrak policy, the only formal legislative proposal submitted to Congress this year has been a proposal for Amtrak to borrow an additional $170,000,000 against the railroad’s 2003 appropriation so

that the company could continue to operate through the remainder

of fiscal year 2002. The Congress rejected this proposal, choosing

instead to provide a supplemental appropriation of $205,000,000 to

ensure the continuation of Amtrak service without any further borrowing against its fiscal year 2003 appropriation.

Transparency in Amtrak’s Budget Process.—The Secretary and

other members of the administration have stated repeatedly that

greater transparency is needed in Amtrak’s budgeting process. The

Committee wholeheartedly agrees and commends the Secretary for

his successful efforts in requiring Amtrak to provide all relevant

participants in the debate with accurate and timely financial documentation. Similarly, the Committee commends Amtrak’s new

leadership for its willingness to provide such transparency in the

development of the railroad’s spending plans.

In the interest of providing transparency to the appropriations

process for Amtrak, the Committee recommendation provides with

specificity the precise amounts appropriated for Amtrak’s operating

losses, its capital expenses on the Northeast Corridor Mainline and

its capital expenses over the rest of the Amtrak system. In recent

years, the Committee provided Amtrak’s appropriation as a grant

for capital expenses only. This practice served to obfuscate the true

102

amount of Federal funding that was needed to cover Amtrak’s operating losses. For fiscal year 2003, the Committee provides

$550,000,000 for Amtrak’s operating expenses including $160,000,000 for Amtrak’s mandated payments to the Railroad Re- tirement system. The Committee also provides $369,000,000 for

capital expenses over Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor Mainline and

$281,000,000 for capital expenses over Amtrak’s national route system excluding the Northeast Corridor Mainline.

Allocation of Committee Recommended Fiscal Year 2003 Appropriation

Operating expenses:

Excess RRTA ................................................................................... $160,000,000

Operating loss ................................................................................. 465,000,000

Subtotal, Operating .................................................................... 625,000,000

Required Savings ............................................................................ (75,000,000)

Subtotal, operating expenses with required savings ................ 550,000,000

Capital Expenses:

NEC Mainline ................................................................................. 464,000,000

Required Savings—NEC Mainline ................................................ (95,000,000)

Subtotal, NEC Mainline ............................................................. 369,000,000

Other Corridors/Long-Distance ..................................................... 355,000,000

Required Savings—Other Corridors/Long Distance .................... (74,000,000)

Subtotal, Other Corridors/Long Distance ................................. 281,000,000

Subtotal, Capital Expenses ........................................................ 650,000,000

Fiscal year 2003 Appropriation ................................................. 1,200,000,000

Requirement for operational savings and capital expense reductions.—Based on Amtrak’s current revenue and expense projections, Amtrak could justify an overall Federal subsidy requirement

of $1,444,000,000 for fiscal year 2003. As displayed above, with an

appropriation of $1,200,000,000, Amtrak’s new management will be

required to come up with expense reductions to decrease its anticipated operating loss by $75,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. In addition,

capital expense reductions of $95,000,000 will be required on the

Northeast Corridor and capital expense reductions of $74,000,000

will be required across Amtrak’s national system excluding the

Northeast Corridor in order to bring capital spending in line with

the recommended appropriation. Amtrak’s new management has

signaled its determination to achieve these savings while continuing to operate Amtrak’s entire national network.

Contributors to Amtrak’s near term financial crises.—There are a

great many factors that have contributed to Amtrak’s near term financial crises. One that is particularly pertinent to the requirement for an increased appropriation for fiscal year 2003 is the uneven pattern of Federal support that Amtrak has experienced over

the last several years. The Taxpayer Relief Act, which was signed

into law on August 5, 1997, included tax carry-back provisions that

effectively made Amtrak eligible for a tax return totaling

$2,323,000,000. That Federal funding allowed Amtrak to make dramatically increased capital expenditures, especially in the Northeast Corridor. It also served as a source of funding from which Amtrak borrowed from time to time to cover operating shortfalls. This

one-time infusion of funding through tax legislation prompted AmVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:06 Aug 01, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX pfrm11 PsN: SR224
103

trak to embark on a spending pattern that would be unsustainable

over the long term. The railroad has now reached the point where

effectively all of the funding provided through the Taxpayer Relief

Act has been spent and is, therefore, no longer available to cover

core elements of Amtrak’s cost structure.

Complicating this problem further was a change made in the

timing in which annually appropriated funding was made available

to Amtrak. The present administration’s budget request for fiscal

year 2002 abandoned the convention whereby Amtrak did not get

its annual appropriation until the very end of the fiscal year. The

Congress acquiesced to this request in the Transportation Appropriations Act for that year. As a result, Amtrak, in fiscal year 2002,

simultaneously had access to most of its 2001 appropriation which

carried over into 2002 as well as all of its 2002 appropriation. As

such, heading into fiscal year 2003, approval of the administration’s proposed freeze on Amtrak spending at the 2002 level would

actually represent a dramatic cut in available Federal resources to

Amtrak. The table below displays the annual appropriation for

each fiscal year opposite the actual amount of Federal funding

spent by Amtrak in each year from all Federal sources including

the Taxpayer Relief Act.

CASH CONSUMPTION FROM ALL FEDERAL SOURCES VERSUS ANNUAL APPROPRIATION

[In millions of dollars]

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Projected

2002

Committee

recommendation 2003

Federal Spending—Operating ................... 406.1 344.0 484.0 362.0 242.0 445.0 550.0

Federal Spending—Capital ....................... 600.0 1,220.4 597.1 971.9 331.1 673.6 650.0

Federal Spending—Total ............. 1,006.1 1,564.4 1,081.1 1,333.9 573.1 1,118.0 1,200.0

Annual Appropriation ................................. 842.5 594.0 609.2 571.0 521.0 831.0 1,200.0

Amtrak’s debt burden.—Adding to Amtrak’s financial difficulties

has been the increasingly punishing debt burden that the railroad

has taken on in just the last few years. The requirement to recapitalize its resources has prompted the railroad to finance an increasing amount of its capital improvements using a variety of debt instruments. Moreover, Amtrak’s false belief that launching the new

Acela service would greatly benefit the company’s bottom line

prompted the company to finance major elements of that project so

as to implement high-speed rail service as soon as possible. Finally,

Amtrak’s periodic cash emergencies have prompted the corporation

to engage in a number of short-term financial transactions to free

up cash that added to the company’s debt burden, but kept the

company out of bankruptcy. These transactions, which in many instances required the Secretary’s approval, included the mortgaging

of portions of Pennsylvania Station in New York City. The table

below displays the history of Amtrak’s debt burden over the last 5

years.

104

Source: DOT Inspector General.

Amtrak’s annual debt service payments are expected to reach

$175,000,000 in fiscal year 2003—an increase of more than 150

percent from the level just 5 years earlier. Amtrak’s growing debt

burden was the principal reason why the Committee rejected the

administration’s proposed legislation to saddle the company with

still more debt to stay solvent through fiscal year 2002. The Committee instead provided a cash grant sufficient to cover Amtrak’s

remaining operating shortfall for the year. Given the size of Amtrak’s debt burden, the Committee is puzzled by the administration’s stated proposal to spin off some parts of Amtrak’s operations

to private vendors. The Committee hopes that any future administration testimony on behalf of this proposal will include a cogent

explanation as to who will assume the company’s debts when portions of the company are ‘‘spun off’’ or ‘‘privatized.’’

Viability of Amtrak routes.—Much of the debate surrounding the

appropriate Federal role in subsidizing Amtrak has centered

around the viability of Amtrak’s existing route structure. On March

7, 2002, the Committee held a hearing with the Deputy Secretary

of Transportation, the then-President of Amtrak and the DOT Inspector General. As part of that hearing, Inspector General Kenneth M. Mead made the following observation:

Some have suggested that Amtrak’s financial woes

would go away if you would cut out the trains outside the

Northeast Corridor. That is not true. In fact, the annual

net operating subsidy that is required to continue Amtrak’s most unprofitable trains is less than one-third of the

annual capital subsidy that is required to operate the most

profitable trains in the Northeast Corridor.

A review of Amtrak’s own financial data indicates that the Inspector General is entirely correct except for his representation

that certain Northeast Corridor trains are ‘‘profitable.’’ As demonstrated below, whether evaluated on a profit and loss (P&L)

basis using GAAP accounting or just on a net contribution basis excluding depreciation, Northeast Corridor service is not expected to

105

come close to making a profit in 2003 just as it hasn’t made a profit

in any previous year.

Northeast Corridor Contribution Analysis

Fiscal year 2003

Profit and loss basis:

Total Revenue ................................................................................. $845,000,000

Total Expense (excl. Depreciation) ................................................ 843,000,000

Net Operating Contribution before Depreciation ..................... 2,000,000

Depreciation .................................................................................... (330,000,000)

Net loss ........................................................................................ (328,000,000)

Contribution (Non P&L Basis)

Operating Contribution .................................................................. 2,000,000

Capital Funding Required ............................................................. (369,000,000)

Net Contribution Requirement .................................................. (367,000,000)

As the Secretary has stated on a number of occasions, the Northeast Corridor has a critical maintenance backlog of between

$5,000,000,000 and $6,000,000,000. While there is a mounting

backlog of maintenance needs across the rest of the Amtrak system, these needs do not begin to approach even a fifth of the needs

along the Northeast Corridor. As such, the Committee does not believe that Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor service is any more ‘‘financially viable’’ than the rest of the Amtrak network, given both the

short term and long term capital needs of that Corridor.

Proposals to shrink Amtrak into financial health ignore the comparatively small burden that Amtrak’s long distance trains place

on the company’s budget. Amtrak has performed a financial analysis of the savings associated with eliminating 18 of its long distance trains. Within the first year, such a policy, which would

eliminate Amtrak service in 24 States, would yield effectively zero

savings in the first year. In the second year, savings in Amtrak’s

operating budget would approach only $18,000,000. Only after 5

years would the elimination of these services yield annual operating savings exceeding $200,000,000—an amount that will not

even cover Amtrak’s anticipated debt service payments for that

year. And such savings does not represent even 5 percent of the

identified capital backlog in the Northeast Corridor. This analysis

prompts the Committee to reject the notion that Amtrak can shrink

its way to financial health.

Administration’s proposed reforms.—As stated earlier, despite

the fact that Amtrak’s authorization will expire in just a few weeks

time, the administration has yet to submit a reauthorization proposal embodying the ‘‘reforms’’ that the Secretary discussed in his

speech of June 20, 2002. Even so, the Committee has some concerns regarding his proposals in the face of his budget request for

2003.

The administration has stated its belief that the States should be

required to shoulder a larger portion of the costs of Amtrak service.

The Committee is well aware that there are currently gross inequities between the States when it comes to State subsidization of

Amtrak service. While the Committee believes that initiatives to

eliminate these inequities have merit, the Committee does not believe that States are in a position to absorb the cost of Amtrak

106

service overnight. Unfortunately, should the administration’s budget request for Amtrak be enacted, such an immediate assumption

of Amtrak’s costs, if it could even be executed, would be the only

way that the railroad might avoid almost immediate bankruptcy.

Recently, the National Governors Association reported that the

States are wrestling with eliminating anticipated State deficits

that could exceed $40,000,000,000 in the coming fiscal year. Their

financial predicament has not been helped any by the administration’s proposal to reduce Federal highway funding to the States by

$8,600,000,000 in that year. The Committee believes that a more

fruitful dialogue over the appropriate role for States in financing

Amtrak service could take place if the administration were to submit a realistic budget request that would allow those States that

are able to increase their contribution incrementally and over time.

Such a dialogue should also recognize that certain States enjoy far

better Amtrak service than others and that all States contribute toward the Federal subsidy to Amtrak and, thus, are deserving of

some level of intercity rail passenger service. Certain States that

face particularly difficult financial conditions may never be able to

increase their contribution.

AMTRAK REFORM COUNCIL

Appropriations, 2002 1 ........................................................................... $225,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... ...........................

Committee recommendation ................................................................. ...........................

1The Council is an independent entity. Its funding is presented within the FRA for display

purposes only.

The Committee has not provided funding for the Amtrak Reform

Council as the Council has now issued its final report and completed its work.

PENNSYLVANIA STATION REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $20,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 20,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 20,000,000

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 2003 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

107

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 $7,326,000,000 would be provided for the programs of the Federal

Transit Administration for fiscal year 2003, which is $100,000,000

more than the obligation limitation authorized under the mass

transit category in TEA21. This funding is comprised of

$1,545,000,000 in direct appropriations of general funds and

$5,781,000,000 in limitations on contract authority.

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendations compared to fiscal year 2002 and the administration’s request:

[In thousands of dollars]

Program 2002 enacted 2003 estimate 1 Committee

recommendation

Administrative expenses .......................................................... 67,000 73,000 73,000

Formula grants 2 3 .................................................................... 3,542,000 3,839,000 3,839,000

University transportation research .......................................... 6,000 6,000 6,000

Transit planning and research ................................................ 116,000 122,000 122,000

Capital investment grants 3 4 .................................................. 2,891,000 3,036,000 3,136,000

Job access and reverse commute grants ................................ 125,000 150,000 150,000

Total ............................................................................ 6,747,000 7,226,000 7,326,000

1 Excludes $3,586,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals.

2 Excludes $23,500,000 in Emergency supplemental funding provided pursuant to Public Law 107–117. 3 Fiscal year 2002 reflects transfer of $50,000,000 from Formula grants to Capital investment grants.

4 Excludes $100,000,000 in Emergency supplemental funding provided pursuant to Public Law 107–117.

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

General fund Trust fund Total

Appropriations, 2002 ................................................................................. $13,400,000 $53,600,000 $67,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 1 ............................................................................ 14,600,000 58,400,000 73,000,000

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 14,600,000 58,400,000 73,000,000

1 Excludes $3,586,000 in CSRS/FEHB accruals.

The Committee recommends a total of $73,000,000 in budget resources funds for administrative expenses.

FORMULA GRANTS

General fund Trust fund Total

Appropriations, 2002 1 2 ................................................................. $668,400,000 $2,873,600,000 $3,542,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 .................................................................. 767,800,000 3,071,200,000 3,839,000,000

Committee recommendation .......................................................... 767,800,000 3,071,200,000 3,839,000,000

1 Reflects $50,000,000 transferred to capital investment grants pursuant to Public Law 107–87 and excludes $23,500,000 in Emergency

Supplemental funding provided pursuant to Public Law 107–117. 2 Fiscal year 2002 does not reflect FHWA flex funding transferred to FTA.

Formula grants to States and local agencies funded under this

heading fall into four categories: urbanized area formula grants

108

(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. Within the total funding level of $3,839,000,000 for fiscal year

2003, the statutory distribution of these formula grants is allocated

among these categories as follows:

Urbanized areas (sec. 5307) .................................................................. $3,445,939,606

Clean fuels (sec. 5308) ........................................................................... 50,000,000

Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310) ........................................................... 90,652,801

Nonurbanized areas (sec. 5311) ............................................................ 240,607,643

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.

Clean fuels program.—The Transportation Equity Act for the

21st Century requires that $50,000,000 be set-aside from funds

made available under the formula grants program to fund the clean

fuels program. The clean fuels program is supplemented by an additional set-aside from the major capital investment’s bus program

and provides grants for the purchase or lease of clean fuel buses

for eligible recipients in areas that are not in compliance with air

quality attainment standards. The Committee has included bill language transferring the clean fuel formula set-aside funds to the

capital investment grants account. The Committee has identified

designated recipients of these funds within the projects listed

under the bus program of the capital investment grants account.

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 2003 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 ...................................................................... $14,927,927 $6,693,617 $1,582,925 $23,204,469

Alaska ......................................................................... 1 8,546,214 932,932 240,303 9,719,449

American Samoa ......................................................... ........................ 153,033 60,088 213,121

Arizona ........................................................................ 44,214,267 3,265,400 1,652,847 49,132,514

Arkansas ..................................................................... 8,076,720 4,841,871 1,029,871 13,948,462

California .................................................................... 583,841,997 10,475,294 9,488,919 603,806,210

Colorado ...................................................................... 46,448,166 2,907,313 1,160,010 50,515,489

109

FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, FISCAL YEAR 2003 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

Connecticut ................................................................. 46,629,133 1,488,013 1,128,644 49,245,790

Delaware ..................................................................... 6,342,133 674,647 352,994 7,369,774

District of Columbia ................................................... 66,802,132 ........................ 309,042 67,111,174

Florida ......................................................................... 158,320,783 6,710,664 6,064,881 171,096,328

Georgia ........................................................................ 63,237,705 8,484,475 2,295,637 74,017,817

Guam .......................................................................... 1,359,878 60,272 157,227 1,577,377

Hawaii ......................................................................... 26,885,021 1,003,351 476,147 28,364,519

Idaho ........................................................................... 5,731,779 1,843,482 455,768 8,031,029

Illinois ......................................................................... 220,316,888 7,163,547 3,526,256 231,006,691

Indiana ........................................................................ 36,011,838 7,130,780 1,871,517 45,014,135

Iowa ............................................................................ 12,875,848 4,838,882 980,862 18,695,592

Kansas ........................................................................ 9,613,682 3,954,869 882,653 14,451,204

Kentucky ...................................................................... 19,550,450 6,611,124 1,461,839 27,623,413

Louisiana .................................................................... 31,467,926 5,164,303 1,455,553 38,087,782

Maine .......................................................................... 3,062,068 2,566,899 533,084 6,162,051

Maryland ..................................................................... 69,014,462 2,800,694 1,545,478 73,360,634

Massachusetts ............................................................ 127,232,927 1,907,117 2,041,414 131,181,458

Michigan ..................................................................... 68,303,580 8,975,050 2,938,848 80,217,478

Minnesota ................................................................... 42,155,128 5,897,179 1,366,007 49,418,314

Mississippi .................................................................. 5,276,443 5,782,322 1,032,720 12,091,485

Missouri ...................................................................... 36,804,592 6,690,078 1,788,808 45,283,478

Montana ...................................................................... 2,581,607 1,784,329 384,485 4,750,421

N. Mariana Islands ..................................................... 676,035 20,103 60,998 757,136

Nebraska ..................................................................... 8,374,720 2,420,469 596,510 11,391,699

Nevada ........................................................................ 24,300,864 859,972 721,940 25,882,776

New Hampshire ........................................................... 4,650,337 1,826,955 457,852 6,935,144

New Jersey .................................................................. 216,873,343 1,764,450 2,587,773 221,225,566

New Mexico ................................................................. 9,107,633 2,555,496 655,206 12,318,335

New York ..................................................................... 548,839,731 9,273,805 6,091,120 564,204,656

North Carolina ............................................................ 37,223,366 11,455,078 2,563,722 51,242,166

North Dakota ............................................................... 3,056,087 1,098,920 310,725 4,465,732

Ohio ............................................................................. 91,723,614 10,796,386 3,431,195 105,951,195

Oklahoma .................................................................... 13,978,521 5,254,198 1,208,398 20,441,117

Oregon ......................................................................... 36,021,230 3,860,548 1,122,512 41,004,290

Pennsylvania ............................................................... 155,123,266 10,871,771 4,044,433 170,039,470

Puerto Rico ................................................................. 44,710,018 886,606 1,399,708 46,996,332

Rhode Island ............................................................... 8,295,427 321,072 463,004 9,079,503

South Carolina ............................................................ 14,169,630 5,711,432 1,383,261 21,264,323

South Dakota .............................................................. 2,348,155 1,496,539 339,305 4,183,999

Tennessee ................................................................... 28,761,361 7,277,715 1,914,830 37,953,906

Texas ........................................................................... 194,268,566 16,176,384 5,644,548 216,089,498

Utah ............................................................................ 27,314,937 1,295,746 592,321 29,203,004

Vermont ....................................................................... 1,043,904 1,344,823 294,426 2,683,153

Virgin Islands ............................................................. ........................ 290,119 150,772 440,891

Virginia ....................................................................... 54,257,001 6,317,842 2,017,699 62,592,542

Washington ................................................................. 95,180,075 4,247,980 1,720,930 101,148,985

West Virginia .............................................................. 4,929,603 3,461,591 784,330 9,175,524

Wisconsin .................................................................... 41,295,126 6,734,456 1,574,405 49,603,987

Wyoming ...................................................................... 1,381,764 982,612 256,054 2,620,430

Subtotal ......................................................... 3,433,535,608 239,404,605 90,652,801 3,763,593,014

Oversight ..................................................................... 17,253,948 1,203,038 ........................ 18,456,986

Total ............................................................................ 3,450,789,556 240,607,643 90,652,801 3,782,050,000

Clean Fuels ................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 50,000,000

Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility ................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 6,950,000

Grand Total ................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 3,839,000,000

1 Includes $4,849,950 for the Alaska Railroad improvements to passenger operations.

110

Over-the-road buses.—The Committee has included $6,950,000 in

fiscal year 2003 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.

UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

General fund Trust fund Total

Appropriations, 2002 ................................................................................. $1,200,000 $4,800,000 $6,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 .............................................................................. 1,200,000 4,800,000 6,000,000

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 1,200,000 4,800,000 6,000,000

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 Committee action provides $6,000,000 for the university

transportation research program, the same level as provided in fiscal year 2002.

TRANSIT PLANNING AND RESEARCH

General fund Trust fund Total

Appropriations, 2002 1 ............................................................................... $23,000,000 $93,000,000 $116,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 .............................................................................. 24,200,000 97,800,000 122,000,000

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 24,200,000 97,800,000 122,000,000

1 Does not reflect FHWA flex funding transferred to FTA.

The Committee action provides $122,000,000 for transit planning

and research. The bill contains language specifying that

$60,385,600 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;

$12,614,400 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

recommenda- tion 2002 program level 1

2003 budget

estimate

Metropolitan planning ...................................................................................... $55,422,400 $60,385,600 $60,385,600

Rural transit assistance program ................................................................... 5,250,000 5,250,000 5,250,000

State planning and research program ............................................................ 11,577,600 12,614,400 12,614,400

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 ....................................................... 31,500,000 31,500,000 31,500,000

Total .................................................................................................... 116,000,000 122,000,000 122,000,000

1 Fiscal year 2002 does not reflect FHWA flex funding transferred to FTA.

111

NATIONAL PLANNING AND RESEARCH PROGRAM

The Committee recommendation includes transit planning and

research grants from the national program for:

Project Amount

Auburn University Compus Transit System, AL ................................ $375,000

Center for Composites Manufacturing, AL .......................................... 1,000,000

Detroit Airport Rail Project, MI ........................................................... 200,000

Detroit Area Regional Transportation Authority Studies, MI ........... 750,000

Electric Transit Vehicle Institute, TN ................................................. 500,000

I–93 Corridor Transit Investment Study, NH ..................................... 1,000,000

National Bio-terrorism Civilian Medical Response Center, PA ......... 1,000,000

National Deployment of the ITN America, ME ................................... 500,000

NDSU Transit Center for Small Urban Areas, ND ............................ 400,000

Rich Passage Passenger Ferry Project, WA ........................................ 1,000,000

Rockford-Belvidere, Transit Feasibility Study, IL .............................. 250,000

Transit Usage, Home Interview Survey Study, UT ............................ 500,000

Washington State Ferries Wireless Connection Project, WA ............. 1,000,000

WVU Exhaust Emmissions Testing, WV ............................................. 1,400,000

Zinc-air Zero emmissions bus, NV ....................................................... 1,500,000

Project ACTION ..................................................................................... 3,000,000

TRUST FUND SHARE OF EXPENSES

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. ($5,398,000,000)

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... (5,781,000,000)

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,781,000,000

For fiscal year 2003, the Committee has provided $5,781,000,000

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.

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

General funds Trust funds Total

Appropriations, 2002 1 ......................................................................... $618,200,000 $2,272,800,000 $2,891,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................ 607,200,000 2,428,800,000 3,036,000,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................ 707,200,000 2,428,800,000 3,136,000,000

1 Includes $50,000,000 transferred from formula grants pursuant to Public Law 107–87 and excludes $100,000,000 in Emergency supplemental funding provided pursuant to Public Law 107–117.

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 $3,136,000,000. Within this total, $2,428,800,000 is from the ‘‘Mass transit’’ account of the

highway trust fund, and no more than $707,200,000 shall be approVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:06 Aug 01, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX pfrm11 PsN: SR224
112

priated from general funds. The following table summarizes the

Committee recommendations:

2002 program

level

Fiscal year 2003

budget estimate

Committee recommendation

Bus and bus facilities ............................................................................... $618,200,000 $607,200,000 $607,200,000

Fixed guideway modernization ................................................................... 1,136,400,000 1,214,400,000 1,214,400,000

New systems and new extensions ............................................................. 1,136,400,000 1,214,400,000 1,314,400,000

Total .............................................................................................. 2,891,000,000 3,036,000,000 3,136,000,000

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 1999 and fiscal year 2000

for the following projects:

—Santa Fe/El Dorado, New Mexico rail link project

—Albuquerque, New Mexico light rail project

—Tuscaloosa, Alabama intermodal center

—Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee, Wisconsin rail extension project

—Northern New Mexico park and ride facilities and State of New

Mexico, Buses and Bus-Related Facilities

—Birmingham, Alabama transit corridor project

—Harrisburg, Pennsylvania-Capital Area Transit/Corridor One

commuter rail project

—Charleston, South Carolina monobeam corridor project

—King County, Washington park and ride expansion

—Sequim, Washington—Clallam Transit multimodal center

—Birmingham-Jefferson County, Alabama buses

—Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, CO

—Dothan Wiregrass, Alabama vehicles and transit facility

—Jefferson/Montevallo, Alabama pedestrian walkway

—Montgomery, Alabama Union Station intermodal center

—Pritchard, Alabama bus transfer center

—West Virginia statewide intermodal facility and buses

Bill language.—The bill contains a general provision (sec. 322)

reprogramming funds provided in previous fiscal years for the following project:

—Wilmington, Delaware downtown transit connector (fiscal year

2000 and fiscal year 2001)—to be made available for Wilmington, Delaware commuter rail improvements.

The Committee has also included a general provision (sec. 337) permitting urbanized areas that grew from less than 200,000 people

to more than 200,000 people as a result of the 2000 census to use

an amount of Federal transit funds equal to the amount they were

allowed to use for operating purposes in fiscal year 2002. The provision also permits areas that were merged into a larger urbanized

area as a result of the 2000 census to use Federal transit funds for

operating purposes equal to the amount in fiscal year 2002. The

Committee is including this provision for fiscal year 2003 only in

113

order to give the authorizing committees time to address this issue

in surface transportation reauthorization legislation next year.

BUS AND BUS FACILITIES

The Committee recommendation for bus and bus facilities funding is $657,200,000. 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

AC Transit Buses and Bus Facilities, CA ............................................ $1,000,000

Adams Transit Authority Facility, PA ................................................. 400,000

Ajo to Phoenix Bus Service, AZ ............................................................ 200,000

Alabama A&M University bus & bus facilities, AL ............................ 500,000

Alabama State Docks Intermodal Facility, AL ................................... 10,000,000

Alabama Statewide Bus Facilities and Ancillary Equipment, AL ..... 3,000,000

Alabama Statewide Replacement of Senior Center Vans, AL ........... 4,500,000

Albuquerque, NM bus and bus facilities .............................................. 300,000

Allegheny Port Authority Buses, PA .................................................... 1,000,000

Allentown Intermodal Transportation Center, PA ............................. 3,000,000

Altoona Metro Transit buses, PA ......................................................... 500,000

Anchorage Int’l Airport Intermodal Facility, AK ................................ 2,000,000

Anchorage Transfer Facility, AK .......................................................... 3,000,000

Ann Arbor Transportation Authority Bus & Bus Facilities, MI ........ 3,000,000

Area Transportation Authority Buses, North Central PA ................. 3,000,000

Area VII Agency on Aging Bus and Bus Facility, MT ........................ 1,000,000

Arkansas Statewide, AR ....................................................................... 10,000,000

Attleboro Intermodal Facility, MA ....................................................... 750,000

Aurora Avenue Bus Rapid Transit, WA .............................................. 2,000,000

Austin Bus Projects, TX ........................................................................ 8,000,000

Bay Area Transportation Authority Buses, Traverse City, MI .......... 1,000,000

Beaumont buses, TX .............................................................................. 300,000

Beaver County Transit Authority, Buses, PA ..................................... 500,000

Bergen County Intermodal Park-n-Ride & Facilities, NJ .................. 1,750,000

Berks Area Reading Transportation Buses, PA .................................. 1,000,000

Bi-State Development Agency Bus Replacement, MO ........................ 3,000,000

Blue Water Area Transit bus facility, Port Huron MI ....................... 2,000,000

Bridgeport High Speed Ferry Terminal Project, CT ........................... 2,000,000

Brockton Intermodal Transportation Center, MA .............................. 1,500,000

Brookhaven Multi-Modal Transportation Center, MS ........................ 2,000,000

Broward County Buses and Bus Facility, FL ...................................... 2,000,000

Brownsville buses, TX ........................................................................... 300,000

BRT Systems, Appurtenances & Facilities, HI ................................... 11,000,000

Buffalo Auditorium Intermodal Center, NY ........................................ 5,000,000

Burien transit center, transit oriented development, WA .................. 2,000,000

Bus Rapid Transit Project, Las Vegas Blvd., NV ................................ 5,000,000

Capital Area Transist buses, PA .......................................................... 500,000

Capital Area Transportation Authority (CATA), Lansing , MI ......... 3,000,000

Cedar Falls, Multimodal Facility, IA ................................................... 1,100,000

Cherry Street Multimodal Facility, IN ................................................ 1,300,000

Chittenden County Transit Authority Bus and Facility, VT ............. 4,000,000

Cincinnati Government Square Transit Transfer Center, OH .......... 6,400,000

Coffman-Cove Inner-island Ferry/Bus Terminal, AK ......................... 2,000,000

Colorado Statewide, CO ........................................................................ 9,000,000

Connecticut State-wide Buses, CT ....................................................... 3,000,000

C–Tran, Vancouver Mall transit center, WA ...................................... 2,700,000

Delaware Statewide Buses .................................................................... 3,250,000

East Central Florida Transit Coalition, Bus and Facilities, FL ........ 11,000,000

East Palo Alto Buses, CA ...................................................................... 400,000

Easton Intermodal Terminal, PA ......................................................... 2,000,000

Edmonds Crossing multi-modal project, WA ....................................... 4,000,000

El Paso Bus Projects, TX ...................................................................... 4,000,000

Espanola ADA van & Compressed Gas Equipment, NM ................... 75,000

Fairbanks Intermodal Facility, AK ...................................................... 250,000

Fairbanks Rail/Bus Transfer Facility, AK ........................................... 2,000,000

114

Project Amount

Ferguson van replacement, MO ........................................................... 45,000

Flint Mass Transportation Authority bus and bus facilities, MI ...... 3,750,000

Fort Smith Bus, AR ............................................................................... 1,500,000

Fresno Buses, CA ................................................................................... 600,000

Fort Worth buses, TX ............................................................................ 500,000

Galveston Buses, TX .............................................................................. 2,000,000

Gardena Municipal Bus Lines, CA ....................................................... 350,000

Georgia Statewide, Bus Replacement Program .................................. 1,500,000

Gloucester Co Sr. Buses, NJ ................................................................. 350,000

Greater Minnesota Transit Authority Bus & Bus Facilities, MN ..... 9,500,000

Greater Triskett Bus Garage Rehabilitation, OH ............................... 3,000,000

GRTA Express Bus & Facility, GA ...................................................... 8,000,000

Hampton Roads Transit Facility Replacement, VA ............................ 4,000,000

Hartford Downtown Circulator, CT ..................................................... 2,800,000

Hartford-New Britain Busway Project, CT ......................................... 14,000,000

Hattiesburg Intermodal Facility, MS ................................................... 3,500,000

Hawaii Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities, HI ..................................... 6,000,000

Hazelwood van expansion, MO ............................................................. 80,000

Henderson County Facility, KY ............................................................ 2,000,000

Hershey Intermodal Transportation Center, PA ................................ 2,000,000

Hoover & Vestavia Hills Diesel Hybrid Electric Buses, AL ............... 1,000,000

Houston buses, MO ................................................................................ 100,000

Huntsville Int’l Airport Intermodal Center Phase III, AL ................. 3,000,000

Idaho Transit Coalition Bus and Bus Facilities .................................. 2,500,000

Illinois Statewide, IL ............................................................................. 10,000,000

Indiana Transit Consortium ................................................................. 2,000,000

Indianapolis Downtown Transit Center, IN ........................................ 4,500,000

Intermodal/Inland Port Terminal, SC .................................................. 5,000,000

Iowa City Intermodal Transit Facility, IA ........................................... 8,000,000

Iowa Statewide ....................................................................................... 6,500,000

Jackson Transportation Authority Bus Facility, MI ........................... 500,000

Jamaica Intermodal Facilities, NY ....................................................... 3,000,000

Jefferson City Transit bus and van, MO ............................................. 2,000,000

Johnson County Transit Programs, KS ............................................... 500,000

Kalamazoo Transportation Center, MI ................................................ 2,900,000

Kansas City KCATA Buses, MO .......................................................... 3,750,000

Kansas Statewide .................................................................................. 3,000,000

Knoxville Electric Transit Intermodal Center, TN ............................. 3,400,000

LSU Health Sciences Center, Shreveport Intermodal Facility, LA ... 2,000,000

Lane Transit District Bus Facility, OR ............................................... 6,000,000

Las Vegas Downtown Transportation Center, NV .............................. 4,500,000

Las Vegas Transit Access Project, NV ................................................. 500,000

Livermore Valley Center Project, CA ................................................... 300,000

Lorain Renovation Train Depot in a Multi-modal Hub, OH .............. 2,400,000

Los Angeles MTA Bus and Bus Facility, CA ....................................... 5,000,000

Los Angeles to Pasadena Construction Authority Intermodal Centers, CA ............................................................................................... 3,000,000

Louisiana Statewide .............................................................................. 13,000,000

Lowell-Gallagher Intermodal Facility, MA .......................................... 1,000,000

Lubbock buses, TX ................................................................................. 500,000

Macon Union Station Intermodal Center Rehabilitation, GA ............ 2,000,000

Marquette County Transit Authority bus and bus facilities, MI ....... 2,750,000

MARTA Bus Replacement & clean fuel buses & facilities, GA ......... 10,000,000

Maryland Statewide .............................................................................. 13,000,000

Maui County buses, HI ......................................................................... 1,500,000

Memphis Airport Intermodal Facility Improvements, TN ................. 3,000,000

Metro Area Transit—Intermodal Facility, NE .................................... 2,000,000

Metro Area Transit,South Omaha/Stockyard Center, NE ................. 1,500,000

Metro Transit Bus & Bus facilities, Twin Cities, MN ........................ 7,000,000

Miami-Dade County, Buses Acquisition, FL ....................................... 3,000,000

Michigan Statewide, Buses & Bus Facilities ....................................... 4,000,000

Missouri Statewide Bus and Bus Facility Projects ............................. 5,500,000

Mobile Health Service Buses, NYC, NY .............................................. 750,000

Modesto Bus Maintenance Facility, CA ............................................... 500,000

Montclair State Univ.Campus & Community Bus System, NJ ......... 1,500,000

Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) Bus and Bus Facilities, CA ........... 500,000

Montgomery County FDA Transit Center, MD ................................... 375,000

115

Project Amount

Montpelier Multimodal Center, VT ...................................................... 3,000,000

Mount Vernon multi-modal facility, WA ............................................. 1,160,000

Mountain Line Buses, Missoula MT .................................................... 1,000,000

Municipal Transit Operators Coalition, Long Beach, CA ................... 1,750,000

Nebraska Statewide ............................................................................... 2,000,000

New Hampshire Statewide Bus Acq., NH ........................................... 3,000,000

New York CNG Urban Buses, NY ........................................................ 4,000,000

Newport Trolley Project, RI .................................................................. 500,000

Niagara Falls International Train Station, NY .................................. 1,500,000

Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority Buses, Facilities, NY .... 2,500,000

Normal Multi-modal Facility, IL .......................................................... 1,750,000

North Carolina Statewide ..................................................................... 8,000,000

North Dakota Statewide ....................................................................... 2,900,000

OATS Bus and Bus Facilities, MO ....................................................... 3,000,000

Oceangateway Development Project, ME ............................................ 1,500,000

Ohio Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities ............................................... 8,000,000

Oklahoma statewide buses and bus facilities ...................................... 12,000,000

OSU Multimodal Transportation Facility, OK .................................... 4,500,000

Palo Alto Bus Facility, CA .................................................................... 400,000

Penn Station Platform Extension, NJ .................................................. 2,000,000

Pierce County bus and bus facilities, WA ............................................ 3,000,000

Port Angeles, International Gateway project, WA .............................. 1,500,000

Port MacKenzie Intermodal Facility, AK ............................................ 2,000,000

Port of Anchorage Intermodal Facility, AK ......................................... 1,000,000

Potomac & Rappahannock PRTC, Buses, VA ..................................... 2,000,000

Premium Commuter Service Pilot Program, RI .................................. 1,250,000

Pullman Multi-modal Center, PA ......................................................... 1,000,000

Reno and Sparks Downtown Facilities, NV ........................................ 6,200,000

Rhode Island Statewide ........................................................................ 7,000,000

Richmond Multi-modal Facility, VA ..................................................... 4,000,000

Rio Rancho, Buses and Bus Facilities, NM ......................................... 250,000

Rochester Genesee Transportation Authority’s Buses, NY ................ 1,500,000

Rosebud Sioux Tribe Bus Facility, SD ................................................. 206,500

Rural Transit Buses & Facilities, NV .................................................. 2,000,000

Sacramento Regional Transit District Bus Facility, CA .................... 1,250,000

Saginaw Transit Authority Regional Service buses, MI ..................... 500,000

Salem Area Mass Transit Bus and Bus Facility, OR ......................... 2,000,000

San Antonio, Transit Bus System Modernization, TX ........................ 3,000,000

San Francisco Muni, Bus and Bus Facilities, CA ............................... 5,000,000

Santa Barbara Bus and Bus Facilities, CA ......................................... 750,000

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Buses, CA .................. 2,000,000

Santa Fe bus and bus facility, NM ...................................................... 1,000,000

Section 5327 Oversight Activities ......................................................... 5,493,500

SEPTA Intermodal Facility, Bucks County, PA .................................. 2,000,000

SEPTA Norristown Intermodal Facility, PA ....................................... 4,000,000

Seward Buses & Bus Facility, AK ........................................................ 200,000

Ship Creek Pedestrian & Intermodal Facility, AK ............................. 1,000,000

Sierra Madre CNG Fueling Station, CA .............................................. 200,000

Small Bus System Program of Projects, WA ....................................... 2,140,000

SMART bus and bus facilities, Oakland County MI .......................... 1,000,000

Snohomish County Community Transit park and ride, WA .............. 3,500,000

Sound Transit regional transit hubs, WA ........................................... 5,000,000

South Bend TRANSPO Buses, IN ........................................................ 1,500,000

South Carolina Statewide ..................................................................... 14,000,000

Southeast Missouri Trans. Services Bus & Bus Facilities, MO ......... 500,000

Spokane bus and bus facilities, WA ..................................................... 3,000,000

Springfield Transportation Department Buses, MO ........................... 2,000,000

Springfield Union Station, MA ............................................................. 8,000,000

St. Charles buses and equipment, MO ................................................ 245,000

St. Johnsbury Transit Center Rehabilitation, VT ............................... 250,000

St. Joseph Buses, MO ............................................................................ 2,000,000

START Bus Service, AZ ........................................................................ 300,000

Stoddard County van, MO .................................................................... 30,000

TEA21 Setaside (Georgetown and Altoona) ......................................... 7,850,000

Tennessee Statewide Buses and Bus Facility, TN .............................. 9,500,000

Thompkins Consolidated Area Transit Bus & bus facility, NY ......... 1,000,000

Topeka Transit Buses, KS .................................................................... 1,500,000

116

Project Amount

Transit Authority of N. Kentucky Buses and bus facility, KY .......... 1,000,000

Trenton Station Intermodal Project, NJ .............................................. 12,000,000

Tri-Met Buses, Portland, OR ................................................................ 3,000,000

Troy State University Bus Shuttle Program, AL ................................ 1,500,000

TTA Transit Authority Bus and Van Purchase, WV .......................... 1,800,000

Tucson Downtown Intermodal Center, AZ .......................................... 3,000,000

UNI Intermodal Facility, IA ................................................................. 1,250,000

Union Station Restoration, NY ............................................................. 1,250,000

Union Station/Molton Street Multimodal Facility, AL ....................... 5,000,000

University of North Alabama Transit Projects, AL ............................ 2,000,000

University of Rhode Island Student Transportation Services, RI ..... 1,250,000

UTA and Park City Transit Buses, UT ............................................... 5,000,000

Utah Statewide regional intermodal transportation centers, UT ...... 1,000,000

Valley Metro/RPTA, Buses & Bus Facilities, Phoenix, AZ ................. 8,000,000

Wabash Landing Transit Bus and Bus Facility, IN ........................... 1,000,000

Wasilla Intermodal Facility, AK ........................................................... 900,000

Wesbrook Parking Garage/Intermodal Facility, ME ........................... 1,000,000

West Coast Florida Bus Coalition, Buses & Bus Facilities, FL ......... 8,000,000

West Lafayette Articulated Buses, IN ................................................. 2,000,000

West Virginia Statewide ....................................................................... 4,000,000

Westchester County Bee-Line Buses, NY ............................................ 1,500,000

Wilkes-Barre Intermodal Facility, PA ................................................. 1,000,000

Wisconsin Statewide .............................................................................. 12,500,000

WMATA Clean Fleet Bus Program, VA ............................................... 3,000,000

Wyandotte Co. Buses, KS ..................................................................... 500,000

Wyoming Bus & Bus Facilities, WY ..................................................... 2,500,000

York County Transit Authority, Buses, PA ......................................... 1,500,000

Illinois Statewide Buses.—The Committee provide $10,000,000 to

the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) for Section 5309

Bus and Bus Facilities grants. The Committee expects IDOT to

provide at least $5,000,000 for Downstate Illinois replacement

buses in Bloomington-Normal, Peoria, Macomb, Madison County,

Rock Island, Rosiclare, Kankakee, Quincy, Rockford, and Springfield. Further, the Committee expects IDOT to provide appropriate

funds for bus facilities in Champaign-Urbana (University of Illinois

Park and Ride/Daycare Center), Galesburg, Rockford, and Springfield.

Washington Statewide Small Transit Systems, Buses and Bus Facilities.—The Committee provides $2,140,000 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) $432,000 to Grant Transit Authority; (2)

$144,000 to Grays Harbor Transportation; (3) $288,000 to Island

Transit; (4) $96,000 to Pacific Transit; and, (5) $1,180,000 to Pullman Transit.

FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION

The Committee recommends a total of $1,214,400,000 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 2002 rail modernization allocations by State:

Estimated fiscal year 2003 section 5309 fixed guideway modernization

Fiscal year

State 2003 budget

Alaska ..................................................................................................... $2,423,937

Arizona ................................................................................................... 1,845,317

California ................................................................................................ 139,151,518

Colorado .................................................................................................. 2,261,031

Connecticut ............................................................................................. 40,546,804

117

Fiscal year

State 2003 budget

District of Columbia .............................................................................. 57,562,724

Florida .................................................................................................... 19,685,468

Georgia ................................................................................................... 27,042,153

Hawaii .................................................................................................... 1,304,537

Illinois ..................................................................................................... 131,151,605

Indiana ................................................................................................... 8,972,016

Louisiana ................................................................................................ 2,972,818

Maryland ................................................................................................ 29,372,229

Massachusetts ........................................................................................ 75,767,529

Michigan ................................................................................................. 575,906

Minnesota ............................................................................................... 5,896,427

Missouri .................................................................................................. 5,008,671

New Jersey ............................................................................................. 104,313,737

New York ................................................................................................ 368,542,791

Ohio ......................................................................................................... 18,427,652

Oregon .................................................................................................... 4,930,300

Pennsylvania .......................................................................................... 100,301,564

Puerto Rico ............................................................................................. 2,722,582

Rhode Island .......................................................................................... 98,373

Tennessee ............................................................................................... 406,222

Texas ....................................................................................................... 9,197,893

Virginia ................................................................................................... 18,194,293

Washington ............................................................................................ 22,695,789

Wisconsin ................................................................................................ 884,114

Total ............................................................................................. 1,202,256,000

One percent oversight ........................................................................... 12,144,000

Total appropriation ..................................................................... 1,214,400,000

NEW STARTS

The bill provides $1,314,400,000 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.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The bill allocates the funds provided for New Starts as follows:

Project Amount

Alaska-Hawaii Setaside ........................................................................ $10,296,000

Allegheny Port Authority, Stage II Light Rail Transit, PA ............... 25,600,000

Altamont Commuter Express San Jose to Stockton, CA .................... 2,000,000

Anderson County, South Carolina Transit System, SC ...................... 6,000,000

Baltimore Central Light Rail Double Track Project, MD ................... 24,000,000

BART, SFO Extension, CA ................................................................... 100,000,000

Birmingham Transit Corridor Study/PE, AL ...................................... 3,000,000

Boston, North Shore Corridor Project, MA .......................................... 1,000,000

Bridgeport Intermodal Corridor Project, CT ....................................... 8,000,000

Burlington-Middlebury Commuter Rail, VT ........................................ 2,000,000

Canal Streetcar, New Orleans, LA ....................................................... 30,000,000

Charlotte South Corridor Light Rail Project, NC ............................... 10,000,000

Chicago, Douglas Blue Line Project, IL ............................................... 55,000,000

Chicago, METRA, Expansion Project, IL ............................................. 52,000,000

Chicago, Ravenswood Brown Line Expansion Project, IL .................. 4,000,000

DART, Suburban Areas Extension, Dallas, TX ................................... 60,000,000

Dulles Link Project, VA ......................................................................... 25,000,000

East Side Access Project, NY ................................................................ 15,000,000

118

Project Amount

Euclid Corridor Transportation Project, Cleveland, OH .................... 6,000,000

Houston Advanced Metro Transit Plan ............................................... 23,400,000

Hudson-Bergen, Hoboken to Tonnelle Ave., NJ .................................. 40,000,000

Hudson-Bergen, Jersey City, Bayonne & Hoboken, NJ ..................... 19,000,000

Interstate MAX Light Rail Transit Extension Project, OR ................ 70,000,000

Johnson County Commuter Rail, KS ................................................... 400,000

Little Rock River Rail, AR .................................................................... 4,000,000

Los Angeles East Side MTA, CA .......................................................... 10,000,000

Los Angeles, North Hollywood Extension, CA .................................... 40,000,000

Lowell, MA to Nashua, NH Commuter Rail Ext. Project, NH .......... 3,000,000

MARC Expansion Project, MD ............................................................. 14,000,000

MARTA North Line Extension Project Completion, GA .................... 16,000,000

MATA Medical Rail Extension, TN ...................................................... 10,000,000

Medical Center Light Rail Extension, UT ........................................... 12,000,000

Metro Link Commuter Rail, St. Clair Extension Project, IL ............. 3,000,000

Metro North Rolling Stock, CT ............................................................. 7,000,000

Nashville Light Rail, TN ....................................................................... 4,000,000

Newark-Elizabeth Rail Link, 15 Station Light Rail Line, NJ ........... 60,000,000

North Shore Connector Project, Pittsburgh, PA ................................. 4,000,000

North/South TRAX Light Rail Transit Line, UT ................................ 1,000,000

Oceanside-Escondido Light Rail Project, CA ....................................... 20,000,000

Ogden to Provo Commuter Rail Corridor, UT ..................................... 6,000,000

Pawtucket Layover Facility, RI ............................................................ 4,500,000

Port McKenzie Ferry, AK ...................................................................... 5,000,000

Raleigh, Triangle Transit Project, NC ................................................. 15,000,000

Resort Corridor Project, NV .................................................................. 10,000,000

Salt Lake City University TRAX Light Rail Transit Line, UT .......... 69,000,000

San Diego Mission Valley East Line Project, CA ................................ 65,000,000

San Juan—Tren Urbano ....................................................................... 45,000,000

Santa Fe/El Dorado Rail Link, NM ...................................................... 2,000,000

Scranton to New York City Passenger Rail Service, PA .................... 3,000,000

SEPTA Schuylkill Valley Metro Project, PA ....................................... 15,000,000

Sounder Commuter Rail, WA ............................................................... 30,000,000

Stamford Urban Transitway, Phase 2 Project, CT ............................. 15,000,000

T–REX Southeast Light Rail Corridor, CO ......................................... 70,000,000

Tri-Rail, Double Track Improvement, FL ............................................ 25,000,000

Twin Cities Hiawatha & Northstar Projects, MN .............................. 60,000,000

Vermont Transportation Authority Rolling Stock, VT ....................... 2,000,000

Virginia Railway Express VRE, Project, VA ....................................... 4,500,000

Wilmington Train Station improvements, DE .................................... 4,000,000

Wilsonville to Beaverton Commuter Rail Project, OR ........................ 5,000,000

WMATA Addison Rd, Largo Extension, MD ....................................... 60,000,000

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

system. This would create a more efficient and environmentally

conscious answer to the overburdened system currently in place.

The project is currently in alternatives analysis. The Committee

has recommended $6,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project

in fiscal year 2003.

Atlanta, Georgia, north line extension project.—The Metropolitan

Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) has completed construction of a 2.3-mile, 2-station extension of the North Line from the

Dunwoody station to North Springs. This extension initiated Revenue Operations on December 16, 2001. This extension serves the

rapidly-growing area north of Atlanta, which includes Perimeter

Center and north Fulton County, and connects 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

119

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 $354,500,000 has been appropriated for

this project through fiscal year 2002. This leaves $16,100,000 remaining in the amended FFGA for this project. The Committee has

recommended $16,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in

fiscal year 2003.

Baltimore/Central LRT Double-Tracking.—The Maryland Mass

Transit Administration is constructing 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. This project double-tracks eight sections of the Central Corridor between Timonium and Cromwell Station/Glen Burnie, for a total of 9.4-miles. Although no new stations

are required, the addition of a second track will require construction of second station platforms at four stations. Other elements included in the project are bridge and crossing improvements, a bidirectional 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-ofway. In July 2001, FTA and MTA entered into a FFGA in the

amount of $120,000,000 in 5309 New Starts funds. The total estimated cost of the project is $153,700,000 (escalated dollars). A total

of $21,490,000 has been appropriated through fiscal year 2002. The

Committee has recommended $24,000,000 in New Starts funding

for this project in fiscal year 2003.

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 findVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:06 Aug 01, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX pfrm11 PsN: SR224
120

ings, 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, is conducting 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 2002, Congress has

appropriated $10,860,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds for this

effort and it has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has

recommended $3,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in

fiscal year 2003.

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 $2,000,000 in New

Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.

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 11.2-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 (NS) railroad

rights-of-way (ROW), including sharing ROW with the city’s existing downtown trolley system. The south corridor is an area generally paralleling 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 remainder of the planned system (7.3 miles) would operate on separate

tracks generally paralleling NS ROW. The proposed project also includes construction of 16 stations, purchase of up to 15 light rail

vehicles and the construction of a light rail vehicle maintenance

and storage facility. Seven proposed stations from I–485 north to

Scaleybark Road will include park-and-ride lots and serve as transfer points for local and express bus service. Total capital costs for

the south corridor project are estimated at $348,200,000. The Federal share is estimated to be $174,000,100 (50 percent). Through

fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $19,780,000 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 2003.

Chicago, Illinois, Douglas Branch reconstruction project.—The

Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) has implemented a complete reconstruction of the approximately 6.6-mile length of the existing

Douglas Branch heavy rail line. The line extends from just west of

downtown Chicago to its terminus at Cermak Avenue. The Douglas

Branch was built in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Due to

121

its age, the line has become seriously deteriorated resulting in high

maintenance and operating costs and declining service. The Douglas Branch currently carries approximately 27,000 average weekday boardings utilizing 11 stations. In the year 2020, CTA expects

that the project would serve 6,000 daily new riders. It 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 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 $482,500,000. The Douglas Branch

is authorized for final design and construction by section

3030(a)(106) of TEA21. FTA and CTA entered into an FFGA in

January 2001 committing $320,100,000 in Section 5309 New Starts

funds to this project. A total of $52,200,000 has been appropriated

through fiscal year 2002. This leaves $267,900,000 needed to fulfill

the FFGA. The Committee has recommended $55,000,000 in New

Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.

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, will construct 16.3 miles of a second mainline track, including a 2.3-mile stretch of third track,

along the existing 55-mile North Central Service (NCS) commuter

rail line to accommodate increased service and operating speeds.

The project also includes the construction of five new stations,

parking facilities and the purchase of two diesel locomotives. The

North Central Corridor extends from downtown Chicago to Antioch

on the Illinois-Wisconsin border, traversing suburban Cook and

Lake counties. Metra estimates that 8,400 average weekday

boardings will occur on the NCS line in the year 2020. The total

capital cost of the North Centeral project is estimated at

$225,520,000, of which Metra is expected to seek $135,320,000 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 six-county 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.

The North Central Full Funding Grant Agreement was signed on

122

November 5, 2001. Through fiscal year 2002, a total of $51,260,000

was provided for the Metra North Central project. Metra, the commuter rail division of the RTA of Northeast Illinois (NE IL), will

construct an additional 12 miles of trackage within an existing 33-

mile corridor connecting Union Station in downtown Chicago to

179th Street in Orland Park, Illinois. The Southwest Corridor

(SWC) commuter rail project would extend commuter rail service

from Orland Park southwest to Manhattan, Illinois. The project

also includes the construction of 3.3 miles of a second mainline,

three additional stations, parking facilities and multiple improvements to tracks, signals, stations, and other facilities. Section

3030(a)(12) of TEA21 authorized the ‘‘Southwest extension’’. The

total cost of the Southwest Corridor commuter rail project is estimated at $198,176,649. Through fiscal year 2002, $38,500,000 was

provided for the Southwest Corridor project. Metra and FTA entered into a FFGA in November 2001 committing $103,020,000 in

section 5309 New Starts funds to the project. Metra, the commuter

rail division of the RTA of NE IL, is implementing an 8.5-mile extension to the existing 35-mile Union Pacific West Line (UPW). The

project would extend the line approximately 8.5 miles west from

Geneva to Elburn, Illinois. The project also includes multiple improvements to track and signals, construction of two new stations,

parking facilities, the purchase of two diesel locomotives and the

construction of a new overnight train storage yard. Section

3030(a)(13) of TEA21 authorizes this project as the Chicago ‘‘west

line extension’’. The total capital costs of the Union Pacific West Line Extension is estimated at $134,603,334 (escalated dollars) in

Federal New Starts funding (60 percent). Through fiscal year 2002,

a total of $34,840,000 has been appropriated for the UPW project.

The Committee has recommended a combined amount of

$52,000,000 in New Starts funding for these three projects in fiscal

year 2003.

Chicago, Illinois, Ravenswood reconstruction project.—The Chicago Transit Authority is proposing to reconstruct existing platforms and expand stations along the Ravenswood (Brown) Line to

accommodate eight-car trains, increasing the overall capacity of the

line. The Ravenswood 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. CTA anticipates approximately 68,000 average

weekday boardings, including 12,300 daily new riders, in the year

2020 on the Ravenswood Line. 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. The

environmental review process for the Ravenswood Line Expansion

Project was completed in July 2002. A Finding of No Significant

Impact was determined. An evaluation is now being done to determine whether the project is eligible to enter into Final Design.

Total capital costs are currently estimated at $476,000,000 (escaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:06 Aug 01, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX pfrm11 PsN: SR224
123

lated dollars), including a requested $245,500,000 in section 5309

New Starts funds. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $7,890,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds to the project.

The Committee has recommended $4,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.

Cleveland, Ohio, Euclid Corridor Transportation Project

(ECTP).—The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

(GCRTA) is proposing to implement a 9.8-mile transit corridor incorporating exclusive bus rapid transit lanes and related capital

improvements on Euclid Avenue from Public Square in downtown

Cleveland east to University Circle. The proposed project is known

as the Euclid Corridor Transportation Project (ECTP). The ECTP

incorporates a series of transit improvements including an exclusive center median busway along Euclid Avenue from Public

Square to University Circle 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, including 2,400 daily new riders, will use the ECTP in the year 2025.

Section 3035 of ISTEA authorized FTA to enter into a multiyear

grant agreement for development of the Dual Hub Corridor. 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 planning 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 was completed in September 2001. A Finding of No Significant Impact was determined.

FTA approved the ECTP into final design. 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 section 5309

New Starts funding for the project (59 percent). Through fiscal year

2002, Congress has appropriated $19,390,000 in section 5309 New

Starts funds for the Euclid corridor transportation project. Of this

amount, Congress reprogrammed $4,720,000 to other projects. The

Committee has recommended $6,000,000 in New Starts funding for

this project in fiscal year 2003.

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

124

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 2002, a total of $230,910,000 has been provided to this project.

The Committee has recommended $60,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.

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, 13-

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. Formerly referred to as the

Southeast Corridor, it is now known locally as the Transportation

Expansion Project (TREX). The double-tracked line would operate

over an exclusive right-of-way and connects with both the existing

Central Corridor light rail line in downtown Denver, and the

Southwest line which was completed and opened for revenue operation in July 2000. The total capital cost of this project is estimated

at $879,274,000. Revenue service is now projected to begin by October 2006, 18 months earlier than anticipated. 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 $60,860,000 in section 5309

New Starts funds has been appropriated for this project through

fiscal year 2002. The Committee has recommended $70,000,000 in

New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.

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

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

1-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 44.3 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 ImproveVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:06 Aug 01, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX pfrm11 PsN: SR224
125

ment Program Segment 5 Project will provide a total of

$110,500,000 in section 5309 New Starts funding. Through fiscal

year 2002, Congress has appropriated $52,400,000 for this project.

This project has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has

recommended $25,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in

fiscal year 2003.

Houston, Texas, Metro advanced transit plan project.—The Advanced Transit Program (ATP) is Houston METRO’s plan for advanced high capacity transit in its 1,285 square mile service area.

The first component to begin operation will be the locally funded

7.5-mile METRO Rail light rail project from downtown to Reliant

Park. The next projects will flow from ongoing implementation of

the METRO Mobility 2025. Adopted by the Board of Directors in

May 2001, this is METRO’s long-range transit plan for the region.

The next steps in the ATP will be studies in the corridors designated for consideration of advanced high capacity transit. The

four highest priority corridors will be subject to detailed alternatives analysis studies, defining mode and general alignment of

the proposed advanced high capacity transit improvements. As a

result of those studies, preferred alternatives for each corridor will

be adopted and moved forward to implementation. By 2025, the

ATP will have introduced advanced high capacity into many of the

region’s major travel corridors. The specific mode will be tailored

to meet individual corridor travel needs while maintaining system

connectivity. This project has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $23,400,000 in New Starts funding for

this project in fiscal year 2003.

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. These estimates will be refined during subsequent

phases of project development. TEA21 section 5309(e)(8)(A) applies

to this project. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $4,450,000 for this project. The Committee has recommended $400,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal

year 2003.

Largo, Maryland, Metrorail, extension project.—The Washington

Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) is constructing a

3.1-mile heavy rail extension of the Metrorail blue line. The 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 will

126

contain at-, above-, and below-grade segments. 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 local bus routes will connect

to the two new stations; shuttle bus service is proposed between

both stations and the FedEx Field, a major sports complex planned

for entertainment and retail uses. Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) will manage the project through preliminary engineering, with WMATA undertaking final design and construction. The

project is anticipated to open for service by December 2004, with

a total capital cost estimated at $433,900,000. In December 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.

Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $67,530,000

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 2003.

Las Vegas/Resort Corridor.—The Las Vegas Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) is in the process of conducting preliminary engineering on the proposed 3.1-mile Resort Corridor Automated Guideway Transit (elevated monorail) project. The monorail

will serve the Las Vegas central business district and the northern

part of the resort corridor along the Las Vegas ‘‘strip’’ from

Freemont Avenue to Sahara Avenue. The Resort Corridor represents the region’s largest primary employment center, as about

50 percent of the regional jobs (206,000) are located in this corridor. There are an estimated 69,300 jobs and 21,800 residents

within a one-half mile from the proposed monorail boarding points.

The RTC estimates the proposed system will carry approximately

58,500 weekday boardings, including 19,880 daily new riders in

2020. Based in the 1990 census data, there are an estimated 1,690

low-income households within a one-half mile radius of the proposed six stations. Revenue operations are scheduled to begin in

January 2004. This project represents an extension to a 4-mile

fully automated monorail that is currently under construction by

the Las Vegas Monorail Company (LVMC). The estimated capital

cost for the 3.1-mile Resort Corridor monorail project is estimated

to be $440,000,000, of which the RTC is seeking $130,000,000, or

30 percent, in New Starts funding. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $13,880,000 for this project. The Committee

is recommending $10,000,000 in New Starts funding for this

project in fiscal year 2003.

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 PresiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:06 Aug 01, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX pfrm11 PsN: SR224
127

dential 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 appropriated $7,930,000

in New Starts funding for this project through fiscal year 2002 and

has recommended $4,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project

in fiscal year 2003.

Long Island Rail Road, New York, East Side access project.—The

New York Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) is currently in

final design on a proposed direct access for Long Island Rail Road

(LIRR) passengers to a new passenger concourse in Grand Central

Terminal (GCT) in east Midtown Manhattan. The proposed 4-mile,

2 station, commuter rail extension under the East River, using an

existing rail tunnel, is anticipated to alleviate LIRR tunnel capacity constraints and enable the overall growth of the Nation’s largest commuter rail system. The project would provide access to the

eastern part of midtown Manhattan for users of the LIRR who now

must get to east midtown by subway or walking from Penn Station.

By allowing some LIRR passengers to use GCT, the project would

also free up capacity at Penn Station for New Jersey Transit and

Amtrak trains. The LIRR ESA project would serve one of the

strongest transit market in the country. By the year 2020, MTA/

LIRR projects that the LIRR ESA project will serve approximately

167,000 average weekday boardings including 15,400 daily new riders. Based on 1990 census data, MTA/LIRR estimates that there

are approximately 4,443 low-income households within a one-half

mile radius of proposed station areas. MTA/LIRR estimates that

the LIRR ESA project would yield 7.4 million hours of travel-time

savings. MTA estimates that the LIRR ESA would serve approximately 698,200 jobs that are located within a one-half mile radius

of the proposed station areas. The project is scheduled for completion by December 2012 at a projected cost of $4,350,000,000. MTA

is proposing a request for $2,170,000,000 (50 percent share) in New

Starts funding. In fiscal year 2002, Congress appropriated

$14,600,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds for the continued development of the LIRR ESA project. The Committee has recommended $15,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in

fiscal year 2003.

Los Angeles, California, East Side corridor light rail transit

project.—The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) 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-andride 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

128

forecasted on the proposed line in 2020, including 9,700 daily new

riders. The project is estimated to cost $818,000,000 in escalated

dollars, with a section 5309 New Starts share of $491,000,000. This

project has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $10,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in

fiscal year 2003.

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, 3-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,

3-station subway extension of the Hollywood branch of MOS 2 to

North Hollywood through the Santa Monica mountains; the MidCity segment, a 2.3-mile, 2-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, 4-station extension under the Los Angeles River to First

and Leona in East Los Angeles. On December 28, 1994, the FFGA

for MOS 3 was amended to include this definition of the eastern

segment, bringing the total commitment of Federal New Starts

funds for MOS 3 to $1,416,490,000. In January 1997, FTA requested that 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

129

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 $1,310,820,000 of which the revised FFGA commits

$681,040,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds. Through fiscal year

2002, a total of $640,550,000 has been appropriated for the North

Hollywood segment of MOS 3. This project has been authorized in

TEA21. The Committee has recommended $40,000,000 in New

Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.

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 5-acre site owned by Amtrak. Estimated capital

costs for the Mid-Day Storage Facility project totals $26,600,000.

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 Penn-Camden Connection project totals

$33,300,000. 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 Silver Spring Intermodal Transit Center

project totals $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

130

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 2003.

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 stations 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 start

funds to the Medical Center Extension. A total of $35,310,000 has

been appropriated for this project through fiscal year 2002. The

Committee has recommended $10,000,000 in New Starts funding

for this project in fiscal year 2003.

Twin Cities/Hiawatha Corridor LRT and Northstar Corridor

Projects.—Metro Transit and the Metropolitan Council of Minneapolis (the local metropolitan planning organization), in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT),

Hennepin County, and the Metropolitan Airports Commission

(MAC), are constructing an 11.6-mile, 17-station light rail line linking downtown Minneapolis, the Minneapolis-St. Paul International

Airport, and the Mall of America in Bloomington. The line would

operate along the corridor following Hiawatha Avenue and Trunk

Highway 55. The line begins in the central business district and

travels south on the existing transit mall along 5th Street, follows

the former Soo Line Railroad from the Metrodome to Franklin Avenue, and then runs parallel with Hiawatha Avenue towards the

airport. The line will tunnel under the runways and taxiways for

1.8 miles, with 1 station, emerge on the west side of the airport,

and continue south to the vicinity of the Mall of America in Bloomington. The project is expected to serve 24,800 average weekday

boardings by the year 2020; 19,300 average weekday boardings are

projected in the opening year. Revenue service is scheduled to commence in December 2004. The total capital cost of the Hiawatha

Corridor LRT is estimated at $675,400,000. Section 3030(a)(91) of

131

TEA21 authorizes the ‘‘Twin Cities—Transitway Corridors’’ for

final design and construction. In January 2001, FTA issued an

FFGA that commits a total of $334,300,000 in section 5309 New

Starts funds to the Hiawatha Corridor LRT. Of this amount,

$168,350,000 has been provided through fiscal year 2002. The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) is currently undertaking preliminary engineering on a proposal to design and construct an 82-mile commuter rail line within the Northstar Corridor

that extends from downtown Minneapolis northwest to Rice, Minnesota. The Northstar Corridor project also includes the construction of a 1,750-foot light rail transit extension of the Hiawatha Corridor LRT project currently under construction. The proposed commuter rail project would serve one of the fast growing regions of

the State. Ridership on the proposed commuter rail line is expected

to be 10,800 average weekday boardings, including 5,400 daily new

riders. Based on 1990 census data, the MNDOT estimates that

there are approximately 1,100 low-income households within a onehalf mile radius of the proposed 11 stations. In the forecast year

2020, MNDOT estimates that the proposed commuter rail would

yield approximately 0.4 million hours of travel-time savings. In addition, The proposed project would serve approximately 35,700 jobs

located within a one-half mile radius of the proposed station areas,

encompassing the Minneapolis, St. Cloud and Rice central business

districts. During the Spring 2002 legislative session, the Minnesota

State legislature was not able to reach a consensus on the provision

of the State’s share of the project’s total estimated capital cost. The State was to provide approximately $120,000,000. Total capital

costs for this project are estimated to be $294,000,000 including

$147,000,000 in requested section 5309 New Starts funding. Congress provided $9,900,000 to this project in fiscal year 2002. This

project has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended $60,000,000 in New Starts funding for the Hiawatha

Corridor LRT and the Northstar Corridor Projects in fiscal year

2003.

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. Through fiscal year 2002, the Committee has appropriated $5,930,000 in section 5309 New Starts funding for this

project in fiscal year 2002. The Committee has recommended

$3,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year

2003.

Nashville, Tennessee, regional commuter rail project.—Nashville’s

Regional Transportation Authority, the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and the Metropolitan Transit Authority have completed

the preliminary engineering and environmental studies. The

project is currently in final design. This project has been authorVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:06 Aug 01, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX pfrm11 PsN: SR224
132

ized in TEA21. Through fiscal year 2002, $11,870,000 has been appropriated for this project. The Committee has recommended

$4,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year

2003.

New Jersey/Hudson-Bergen light rail transit project (MOS–1).— The New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is constructing

a 9.6-mile, Minimum Operable Segment (MOS) of an eventual 20.1-

mile at-grade Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit System (HBLRTS)

that will extend from the Vince Lombardi park-and-ride lot in Bergen County to West Fifth Street in Bayonne in Hudson County,

New Jersey. HBLRTS MOS–1 will connect the Hoboken Terminal

to 34th Street in Bayonne and West Side Avenue in 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 minimum operable segment (MOS) 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. In August 1996, FTA and NJ TRANSIT

executed a FFGA, committing $604,090,000 in section 5309 New

Starts funding for HBLRTS MOS–1. NJ TRANSIT is currently providing initial revenue service on HBLRTS MOS–1 from PavoniaNewport to West Side Avenue and East 34th Street. Construction

on HBLRTS MOS–1 is approximately 85 percent complete. Full

revenue service is scheduled to commence in September 2002.

Through fiscal year 2002, a total of $584,890,000 has been appropriated for this project. This project has been authorized in TEA21.

The Committee has recommended $19,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.

New Jersey/Hudson-Bergen light rail transit project (MOS–2).— The second Minimum Operable Segment (MOS–2) of the NJ Transit Hudson-Bergen LRT system is a 5.1-mile, 7-station segment

running north from Hoboken Terminal to the Tonnelle Avenue

park-and-ride lot in North Bergen, and south to 22nd Street in Bayonne. The Hudson-Bergen MOS–2 line will serve an area with one

of the highest residential densities in the region, and the downtown

Jersey City area contains the largest concentration of office development in Hudson County. By providing connections to ferry and

commuter rail service, the line will also serve the Manhattan central business district. MOS–2 is scheduled for completion in 2005

and is anticipated to carry 34,900 average weekday boardings in

2010. Total costs for MOS–2 are estimated at $1,215,400,000. FTA

issued an FFGA for this project on October 31, 2000, committing

a total of $500,000,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds. The

MOS–2 project does not require funding from the section 5309 New

Starts program until fiscal year 2003; the issuance of the FFGA at

this point provided NJ Transit with the authority to borrow funds

to begin construction while the MOS–1 is being completed, under

the same turnkey contract. This permits the entire Hudson-Bergen

project to be constructed at a lower cost by avoiding the significant

costs associated with stopping and then restarting a major construction project. No prior year funding has been appropriated for

133

MOS–2 from the section 5309 New Starts program. This project

has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended

$40,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year

2003.

Newark, New Jersey—Newark Rail Link (MOS–1) Project.—The

New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is constructing a 1-

mile, 5-station initial Minimum Operable Segment (MOS–1) of a

proposed 8.8-mile, 16-station light rail transit (LRT) system between Newark and downtown Elizabeth, New Jersey. MOS–1) will

function as an extension of the existing 4.3-mile Newark City Subway light rail line, running from Board Street in Newark to Newark’s Penn Station. In August 2000, FTA and NJ TRANSIT executed a FFGA committing $141,950,000 in section 5309 New Starts

funds. NJ transit is preparing a Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (SDEIS) to analyze the effects of an

alignment modification on the segment contained within the City

of Elizabeth (NERL MOS–3) to support extensive commercial and

retail development that has been initiated since the completion of

the original 1997 DEIS for the full 8.8-mile NERL project. The

total cost of the MOS–1 segment is estimated at $207,700,000 (escalated dollars). 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 fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated a total of $59,390,000 for this project. An

additional $9,910,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001. The Committee has recommended $60,000,000 in New Starts funding for

this project in fiscal year 2003.

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 Carrollton 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 $161,300,000, of

which RTA is seeking $129,050,000 (80 percent) in section 5309

New Starts funding, as recommended by FTA. Final design is essentially complete, contracts for vehicle assembly have been awarded, and construction contracts are pending award. FTA awaits completion of the congressional review of the proposed FFGA. Section

3030(a)(51) of TEA21 authorizes the New Orleans Canal Streetcar

Project for final design and construction. Through fiscal year 2002,

Congress has appropriated a total of $70,030,000 for this project.

134

The Committee has recommended $30,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.

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 $14,700,000 (50 percent), consisting of $10,000,000 in section 5309 New Starts funding and

$4,700,000 in Fixed Guideway Modernization funding, the rest of

the project is being funded through the Rhode Island Department

of Transportation (RIDOT) and the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated

$5,450,000 in section 5309 in the FTA New Start funds. The Committee has recommended $4,500,000 in New Starts funding for this

project in fiscal year 2003.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Schuylkill Valley Metro Project.— The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA)

and the Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority (BARTA)

propose to develop the Schuylkill Valley Metro Rail project. The

proposed project extends approximately 74 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 City Philadelphia,

Art Museum, Philadelphia Zoo, King of Prussia Malls, Valley Forge

National Park and Reading outlets. The 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. SEPTA and BARTA

have selected a locally preferred alternative (LPA) that 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 cost for the project is estimated at $1,831,700,000. The DEIS

was published in December 2001. FTA approved entry into PE in

January 2002. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has provided

$25,720,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds for the proposed

project. The Committee has recommended $15,000,000 in New

Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.

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 project involves the conVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:06 Aug 01, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00134 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX pfrm11 PsN: SR224
135

struction of four new stations and modifications of the Gateway

Center and Steel Plaza stations, and the acquisition of 10 new light

rail vehicles. 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

2006. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated

$23,670,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds (50 percent) for this

effort. The Committee has recommended $4,000,000 in New Starts

funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Stage II LRT Reconstruction project.— The Port Authority of Allegheny County (‘‘Port Authority’’) is 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 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) will be reopened,

and 28 new light rail vehicles are being 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 park-and-ride spaces, and

the purchase of 28 light rail vehicles. The total capital cost of the

Stage II Priority Program is estimated at $386,460,000. 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 2002, a total of

$41,530,000 has been appropriated in New Starts funds for this

project, and an additional $96,500,000 has been appropriated in

section 5309 Fixed Guideway Modernization funds. The Committee

has recommended $25,600,000 in New Starts funding for this

project in fiscal year 2003.

Portland, Oregon Interstate MAX LRT Extension project.—The

Tri-County Metropolitan Transit District of Oregon (Tri-Met) is

constructing 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

136

$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 were allocated to

Portland Metro for the 12-mile South-North light rail line originally proposed for this corridor. The Committee has recommended

$70,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year

2003. Through fiscal year 2002, the Committee appropriated

$76,750,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds for the Interstate

MAX light rail extension. This figure includes $70,000,000 in prior

years’ section 5309 New Starts funds that are not included in the

FFGA commitment.

Puget Sound, Washington, Sounder Commuter 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, $79,320,000 has been appropriated for the 82-mile corridor. The Committee has recommended

$30,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year

2003.

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

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 31,700 average

weekday boardings by the year 2025. 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. Through

137

fiscal year 2002, $50,550,000 has been appropriated for this project.

The Committee has recommended $15,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.

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), extending from the

current Metrolink terminal in downtown East St. Louis to Belleville Area College (now known as Southwest Illinois College), began

revenue service in May 2001. This segment consists of 8 stations,

7 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 rights-of-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 BiState 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

2002, a total of $240,560,000 has been appropriated for this project.

The Committee has recommended $3,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.

Salt Lake City, Utah, CBD to University LRT project.—The Utah

Transit Authority (UTA) is implementing a 2.5-mile, 4-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 $118,500,000. 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

appropriated for the project in prior years, but not included in the

FFGA scope. Through fiscal year 2002, $20,800,000 in section 5309

New Starts funds has been appropriated for this project. The Committee has recommended $69,000,000 in New Starts funding for

this project in fiscal year 2003.

Salt Lake City, Utah, North-South LRT.—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 for 2 miles

138

and then follows a lightly-used railroad alignment owned by UTA

to the suburban community of Sandy for 13 miles. This project is

one component of the Interstate 15 corridor improvement initiative,

which includes reconstruction of a parallel segment of I–15. Though

original ridership projections for the South LRT system estimated

daily ridership at 14,000 daily passengers in 2000 and 23,000 passengers by 2010, current ridership averages 19,000 weekday passengers. Total capital costs for this project were $312,490,000. For

the 2002 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games, this project connected major hotels and local residential areas with the Olympic

venues for figure skating, medal rounds for ice hockey, and the

International Broadcast Center, and connects with bus service to

venues for speed skating, curling, and the Nordic alpine events. On

August 2, 1995, FTA issued an FFGA for this project that committed a total of $237,390,000 in Federal New Starts funding. This

does not include $6,600,000 in prior year funds that were provided

before the FFGA was issued, which brings the total amount of section 5309 New Starts funding to $243,990,000. A total of

$236,678,000 has been appropriated through fiscal year 2002; a

shortfall remains totaling $718,006. The Committee has recommended $1,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.

Salt Lake City, Utah, University Medical Center LRT extension

project.—The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) provides light rail

service on two lines: the has completed construction of a 15-

mileNorth-South light rail transit (LRT) line from Sandy City to

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). The University light rail line operates on a A

2.5-mile alignment from downtown Salt Lake City to Rice-Eccles

stadium located at the western edge of the University of Utah campus. 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 to the existing UTA LRT system, extending

from Rice-Eccles stadium to the University Medical Center. Revenue operation date is projected for December 2004. FTA and UTA

signed an FFGA in May 2002 for $53,600,000 in section 5309 New

Starts funds. The Committee has recommended $12,000,000 in

New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.

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 metropolitan 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, have completed an Inter-Regional Corridor Alternatives Analysis study to evaluate transportation improvements

in a 120-mile corridor from Brigham City to Payson. The corridor

encompasses the Ogden, Salt Lake City and Provo/Orem urbanized

areas. The study evaluates highway and transit alternatives in the

corridor. WFRC and MAG completed a Long-Range Transit AnalVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:06 Aug 01, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX pfrm11 PsN: SR224
139

ysis 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 12 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 $587,000,000, with $272,000,000 for Ogden to Salt Lake

City and $315,000,000 for Salt Lake City to Provo. Through fiscal

year 2002, Congress has appropriated $3,900,000 in section 5309

New Starts funds for this effort. The Committee has recommended

$6,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year

2003.

San Diego, California, Oceanside-Escondido Rail Corridor

project.—The North County Transit District (NCTD) in northern

San Diego County, California is planning to convert an existing 22-

mile freight railroad corridor between Oceanside and Escondido

into a rail transit line. The line would run east from the City of

Oceanside through the cities of Vista and San Marcos and unincorporated portions of San Diego County, to the City of Escondido,

using diesel multiple unit (DMU) rail vehicles. The alignment also

includes 1.7 miles of new right-of-way to serve the campus of California State University San Marcos (CSUSM). The line is located

along the State Route 78 corridor, the principal east-west corridor

in the county. The complete 23.7-mile system will serve 15 stations,

4 of which would be located at existing transit centers. Passenger

rail service would have exclusive use of the rail line during pre-defined hours of operation. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR)

for the Oceanside-Escondido project was certified in 1990, and a

separate EIR for the CSUSM alignment was certified in 1991. A

major investment study was not required under the procedures in

effect at the time, based on concurrence from FTA, FHWA, the San

Diego Association of Governments, Caltrans, the City of San

Marcos, and NCTD. Advance planning was completed in December

1995, and the Environmental Assessment/Supplemental Environmental Impact Report was completed in early 1997. FTA approved

NCTD’s request to enter final design in February 2000. The total

capital cost for this project is estimated at $332,300,000, of which

NCTD is seeking $152,100,000 (46 percent) in FTA § 5309 New

Starts funds. Ridership is estimated at 15,100 average weekday

boardings in 2015, of which 8,600 would be daily new riders. Revenue operations are scheduled to begin in January 2004. This

project will help to alleviate the heavy congestion of northern San

Diego County along the Route 78 corridor. The project will serve

large intermodal transit centers in both Oceanside and Escondido,

and the corridor between contains a dispersed mix of commercial,

industrial, and single-and multiple-family residential developments. This project is rated ‘‘medium-high’’ for both finance and

justification, earning an overall rating of ‘‘highly recommended.’’

Section 3030(a)(77) of TEA21 authorized this project for final design and construction. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated $24,280,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds for this

project. FTA anticipates that NCTD will be ready for an FFGA for

140

this project by fall fiscal year 2003. The Committee has recommended $20,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in

fiscal year 2003.

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 2002, Congress has appropriated $112,720,000 for this project.

The Committee has recommended $65,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.

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 consists 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

141

project sponsors. Thus, the original Federal commitment is unchanged at $750,000,000. Through fiscal year 2002, a total of

$317,370,000 has been appropriated for this project. This project

has been authorized in TEA21. The Committee has recommended

$100,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year

2003.

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

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 2 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

$193,560,000 in section 5309 funds has been allocated to the Tren

Urbano project through fiscal year 2002. The Committee has recommended $45,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in

fiscal year 2003.

Scranton, Pennsylvania, rail service to New York City.—Morris,

Sussex, and Warren Counties, all located in New Jersey, in cooperation with the New Jersey TRANSIT Corporation (NJ TRANSIT) conducted a Major Investment Study/Environmental Assessment (MIS/EA) to examine the feasibility of re-instituting rail service on the Lackawanna Cut-off Corridor between Scranton, Pennsylvania and Hoboken, New Jersey. In addition, in 1998, a planning study was undertaken by Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania

to preliminarily define the State’s portion of the project. Commuter

rail was selected as the locally preferred alternative. The potential

rail service would connect to the NJ TRANSIT Boonton Line at

Port Morris in Roxbury, New Jersey. Trains would operate to Hoboken and connect to Midtown Direct trains traveling to New York’s

Penn Station. The proposed project would include track and signal

improvements, new stations, parking facilities, train storage yard,

and rail equipment acquisition. Information on mobility improvements, environmental benefits, cost effectiveness, operating efficiencies, transit-supportive land use and other factors are being developed. Through fiscal year 2002, Congress has appropriated

$990,000 in section 5309 New Starts funds for this effort. These

funds will be used for conceptual design and completion of the EA.

142

The Committee has recommended $3,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.

Seattle, Sound Transit Central Link Light Rail.—The Committee

takes note of the significant progress made by the Federal Transit

Administration and Sound Transit in addressing the concerns

about light rail developments in the Puget Sound region raised by

the Department of Transportation Inspector General’s Interim Report of April, 2001. Since that time, the FTA and regional leaders

have worked to make necessary improvements in the project plans

and in oversight of the project. Sound Transit’s Board of Directors

in November, 2001 adopted a new initial segment for Central Link

light rail. This 14-mile line will run from downtown Seattle in the

north to just north of Sea-Tac Airport. Sound Transit has implemented management improvements which have improved its cost

estimation and financial management capabilities. The FTA has

stepped-up its oversight of the project as well. The Committee understands that Sound Transit will request a FFGA for the same

$500,000,000 granted in 2001, but will seek to apply it to the revised alignment. Through fiscal year 2003, Congress has appropriated $90,970,000 for the project. The Committee encourages the

ongoing efforts of Sound Transit and the FTA and looks forward to

continuing to work with the FTA and Sound Transit in addressing

the Puget Sound region’s significant transit needs.

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 1-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

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). Through fiscal

year 2002, Congress has appropriated $14,850,000 for this project.

The Committee has recommended $15,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2003.

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 implemented a commuter rail system along

an existing Union-Pacific Railroad right-of-way 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

143

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 2002, Congress has appropriated $6,910,000 in

section 5309 New Starts funds for this effort. The Committee has

recommended $2,000,000 in New Starts funding for this project in

fiscal year 2003.

JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE GRANTS

General fund Trust fund Total

Appropriations, 2002 ................................................................................. $25,000,000 $100,000,000 $125,000,000

Budget estimate, 2003 .............................................................................. 30,000,000 120,000,000 150,000,000

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 30,000,000 120,000,000 150,000,000

The Committee recommends $150,000,000 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. 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 2003:

Project Amount

Alabama Jefferson County, JARC, AL ................................................. $4,000,000

Alaska Mobility Coalititon, AK ............................................................. 500,000

Allegheny Port Authority JARC, PA .................................................... 3,000,000

Austin Capital Metros Access to JARC, TX ........................................ 3,000,000

CalWORKS Recipient Job Center, CA ................................................. 750,000

Capital District Transportation Authority, Albany, NY ..................... 550,000

Central Ohio, Mobility Management, COTA, OH ............................... 600,000

Chatham JARC Program, GA ............................................................... 550,000

Chautauqua Area Rural Transportation System, NY ........................ 100,000

Chemung County Transit, NY .............................................................. 150,000

Columbia, Expanded Service to Rural Welfare Recipients, NY ......... 100,000

Connecticut, JARC, CT ......................................................................... 3,000,000

Corpus Christi JARC Program, TX ...................................................... 750,000

Delaware Welfare to Work Initiative ................................................... 750,000

El Paso, JARC Program, TX ................................................................. 500,000

Flint Job Access Program, MI .............................................................. 750,000

Fort Wayne’s Hanna Creighton Transit Center, IN ........................... 1,500,000

Franklin County Expansion of Hour Service, NY ............................... 150,000

Grand Rapids Reverse Commute Program, MI ................................... 675,000

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority JARC, OH ................ 1,000,000

Hornell, Trans. Alternatives for Special Needs, NY ........................... 100,000

Illinois, Ways To Work .......................................................................... 550,000

IndyGo Multi-use Downtown Transit Center, IN ............................... 550,000

Iowa Statewide JARC ............................................................................ 2,000,000

Jackson-Josephine County JARC Project, OR ..................................... 325,000

Jacksonville Trans. Authority, Choice Ride Program, FL .................. 750,000

Kenai Peninsula, Transit Planning, AK .............................................. 500,000

KW, Paratransit Vehicle Replacement, KS ......................................... 60,000

LA County, UTRANS, CA ..................................................................... 1,000,000

Lafayette Ways to Work Program, LA ................................................. 200,000

Lakeville, MA Smart Growth Planning Initiative, MA ...................... 225,000

144

Project Amount

Lancaster-Littleton Transit Project, NH ............................................. 100,000

Low-Income LIFT Program, SF MTC, CA ........................................... 2,000,000

LYNX, Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, FL ....... 400,000

Macon-Bibb County Reverse Commute Program, GA ........................ 550,000

Maricopa County Worklinks Project, AZ ............................................. 500,000

Maryland Statewide JARC, (Montgomery County—$600,000) .......... 4,000,000

MASCOT Matanuska-Susitna Valley, AK ........................................... 200,000

Metrolink Corridor Access to Jobs, MO ............................................... 3,000,000

Missouri Statewide JARC Grants, MO ................................................ 2,800,000

New Jersey JARC Program .................................................................. 4,000,000

Northwest Ohio Commuter LINK, Toledo, OH ................................... 250,000

Oklahoma Statewide Access to Jobs Program ..................................... 4,000,000

Oregon Ways to Work Loan Program .................................................. 500,000

Portland Metropolitan Region JARC Program, OR ............................ 1,500,000

Rhode Island Deployment of Flexible Services ................................... 1,500,000

Rhode Island Statewide JARC .............................................................. 2,000,000

Ride Share Program—MTA, CA ........................................................... 750,000

Rochester-Genesseee Regional Transportation Authority, NY .......... 400,000

SACOG, Sacramento Region JARC Projects, CA ................................ 1,500,000

San Antonio, Access to Jobs Program, TX ........................................... 925,000

Santa Clara Valley, Guaranteed Ride Home Program, CA ............... 350,000

SEPTA JARC, PA .................................................................................. 3,500,000

Service for Ithaca, NY ........................................................................... 150,000

Anchorage People Mover, AK ............................................................... 200,000

STEP–UP Job Access Project, Dayton, OH ......................................... 250,000

Valley Metro/RPTA Job Access Program, AZ ...................................... 1,200,000

Wake County Transportation Services (WCTS) Expansion, NC ....... 550,000

Ways to Work, Missouri ........................................................................ 450,000

Ways to Work, Yakima, WA ................................................................. 500,000

West Virginia Statewide, JARC, WV ................................................... 1,000,000

Wisconsin Statewide JARC ................................................................... 4,000,000

WMATA JARC, VA ................................................................................ 1,750,000

WorkFirst transportation initiative, WA ............................................. 3,500,000

Wyandotte Co. JARC, KS ...................................................................... 1,750,000

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, 2002 1 ........................................................................... $13,345,000

Budget estimate, 2003 2 ......................................................................... 14,086,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 13,345,000

1Does not reflect reduction of $11,000 pursuant to section 349 of Public Law 107–87 or reduction of $10,000 pursuant to section 1106 of Public Law 107–117. 2 Excludes $702,000 CSRS/FEHB accruals.

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.

145

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

The Committee recommendation includes $13,345,000 to 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. Based on independent security assessments, the Corporation plans to implement

additional security measures for the Saint Lawrence Seaway in

2003. The Corporation anticipates $820,000 in new and revised security measures.

The Committee notes the efforts made by the Saint Lawrence

Seaway Development Corporation to enhance the security of Seaway infrastructure and maintain an open, yet secure waterway.

Following the events of September 11, 2001, the SLSDC developed

new security protocols that enhanced the security of the locks and

other critical infrastructure along the Seaway. Additionally, in coordination with their Canadian counterparts, the SLSDC conducted

a vulnerability assessment and developed a new Risk Assessment

Inspection for certain high risk foreign-flag vessels that met the

needs of the United States but was conducted while the vessel was

in Canadian waters. The Committee applauds these efforts and directs the SLSDC to translate this information to the Transportation Security Administration and provide a report to both the

House and Senate Appropriations Committees on the status of

these initiatives and any further recommendations that the TSA

may have to ensure consistent security initiatives are present to

protect and secure the nation’s borders and waterways. Any such

recommendations should be appropriately noted the subsequent fiscal year 2004 budget request.

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 2003, 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.

146

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS

Appropriations, 2002 1 2 ......................................................................... $37,279,000

Budget estimate, 2003 3 4 ...................................................................... 38,391,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 43,725,000

1Does not reflect rescissions of $113,000 pursuant to Public Law 107–87 and $97,000 pursuant to Public Law 107–117. 2Does not reflect emergency supplemental funding of $2,500,000 pursuant to Public Law 107–

117. 3Does not include $5,987,000 in proposed new user fees.

4 Excludes CSRS/FEHB accruals of $1,316,000.

The Committee has provided a total of $44,378,000 for the ‘‘Research and special programs’’ account, which is the same as the

budget request.

The following table summarizes the Committee recommendations:

Fiscal year 2002

enacted 1

Fiscal year 2003

estimate

Committee recommendation

Hazardous materials safety ....................................................................... $21,217,000 $23,079,000 $23,079,000

New hazardous materials user fees .......................................................... ........................ $5,987,000 ........................

(FTE) .................................................................................................. (132) (136) (136)

Emergency transportation .......................................................................... $1,897,000 $2,058,000 $2,058,000

(FTE) .................................................................................................. (9) (10) (10)

Research and technology ........................................................................... $2,784,000 $2,854,000 $2,854,000

(FTE) .................................................................................................. (9) (9) (9)

Program and administrative support ........................................................ $11,381,000 $16,387,000 $15,734,000

(FTE) .................................................................................................. (50) (60) (59)

Total, research and special programs ......................................... $37,279,000 $38,391,000 $43,725,000

1 Does not reflect rescissions of $113,000 pursuant to Public Law 107–87 and $97,000 pursuant to Public Law 107–117. 2 Does not reflect emergency supplemental funding of $2,500,000 pursuant to Public Law 107–117.

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 $23,079,000 for hazardous materials

safety, which is the same as the budget request.

Hazardous Materials Registration Fee Increase.—The Committee

does not support the requested bill language to increase the Hazardous Materials Registration Fee that would result in an estimated additional collection of $6,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. The

intended purpose of this increase is to finance part of the Hazardous Materials Safety Program. The Committee has denied the

use of industry assessed fees to fund the Hazardous Materials Safety Program in the past and again denies this request.

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 preVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:06 Aug 01, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00146 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX pfrm11 PsN: SR224
147

paredness 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 $2,058,000 for emergency transportation, which is the same as the budget request.

RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

The Committee recommends $2,854,000 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.

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 $15,734,000 for program and administrative support, which is consistent with the budget request.

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS

Business Modernization.—Public Law 107–87 directed RSPA to

develop an Information Technology Strategic Plan outlining imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 11:06 Aug 01, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR224.XXX pfrm11 PsN: SR224
148

provements in information technology and business modernization.

In advance of this plan, the administration requested $3,616,000

for IT infrastructure improvements and identified RSPA’s need to

remedy its weak IT infrastructure as its number one priority for

fiscal year 2003. The Committee supports the need to overhaul

RSPA’s Information Management Program but remains exceedingly

concerned by RSPA’s inability to develop a true Information Technology Strategic Plan that identifies what RSPA’s information

needs are, identifies who needs access to the information, and identifies the resulting system infrastructure requirements.

The Strategic Plan, dated February 1, 2002, does none of these things. It does, however, call for an additional $3,500,000 dollars

for further IT consulting expenses. The plan also identifies

$9,100,000 that will be necessary for software development and

hardware acquisition. The Committee disagrees that this level of

funding is necessary for either the consulting costs or the IT infrastructure development. As such, the Committee directs that no additional funds shall be expended for consulting costs for this initiative and directs RSPA to proceed with the hiring of their IT personnel. The Committee approves the request for 10 positions and

7 FTEs for information technology support. It is essential that

RSPA hire the appropriate technical expertise to allow them to develop a true Strategic Information Technology Plan in house. The

Committee approves the request for $3,600,000 but directs RSPA

to provide a Strategic Information Technology Plan, of no more

than 15 pages, to both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by December 31, 2002. The Strategic Plan shall be

submitted prior to any IT expenditure beyond the hiring of Information Technology Specialists. Within this Strategic Plan RSPA

should identify their infrastructure spending plan and address information security.

New Full Time Equivalent Positions Request.—Within the Administration’s Personnel Compensation and Benefits request, 17

positions and 12 FTE’s are requested. Of those personnel requested, one position and one FTE is for an emergency transportation military liaison position. This position is currently filled with

a military fellow provided by the Department of Defense. While the

Committee believes that a military liaison is beneficial to the Office

of Emergency Transportation, funding should continue to be provided by the Department of Defense.

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OILSPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

Pipeline safety

fund Trust fund Total

Appropriations, 2002 1 ............................................................................... $50,386,000 $7,864,000 $58,250,000

Budget estimate, 2003 2 ............................................................................ 56,385,000 7,472,000 63,857,000

Committee recommendation ...................................................................... 56,385,000 7,472,000 63,857,000

1 Does not reflect rescissions of $74,000 pursuant to Public Law 107–87 and $64,000 pursuant to Public Law 107–117. 2 Excludes CSRS/FEHB accruals of $653,000.

The Research and Special Programs Administration is responsible for the Department’s Pipeline Safety Program. Funding for

149

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 $63,857,000 for the Department’s Pipeline Safety Program, which is consistent with the

budget estimate. The bill specifies that, of the total appropriation,

$56,385,000 shall be from the pipeline safety fund and $7,472,000

shall be from the oil spill liability trust fund.

Enforcement of Consensus Guidelines.—The Office of Pipeline

Safety, the pipeline industry and various Federal agencies are

working to finalize consensus guidelines and regulatory standards

on the different security measures that should be taken by critical

pipeline facilities. The Committee maintains that it is essential

that OPS has sufficient legal authorities to ensure compliance with

either these guidelines or standards. To that end, the Department’s

General Counsel shall submit a report to the House and Senate

Committees on Appropriations before January 1, 2003, specifying

the legal authorities that OPS will use to bring either enforcement

actions or issue facility orders against any operator of a critical

pipeline facility that fails to comply with the OPS-endorsed guidelines or consensus standards relevant to pipeline security at different threat levels. The Counsel will also assess the need for regulatory action in this area.

National Pipeline Safety and Operations Research Consortium.—

Within the funds provided for research and development, the Committee encourages the administrator to support the creation of a

National Pipeline Safety and Operations Research Consortium to

increase the operational efficiency and system safety of pipeline

transportation for both liquid and gas commodities. The Center will

apply emerging technologies to the pipeline industry to benefit both

carriers and pipeline customers to increase the physical safety and

integrity and productivity of the nation’s pipeline network.

Research and development.—The Committee recommends

$3,970,000 for pipeline safety research, which is consistent with 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.

150

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriations, 2002 ............................................................................. $200,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 200,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 200,000

The hazardous materials transportation law (title 49 U.S.C. 5101

et seq.) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a reimbursable 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 2003.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2002 1 2 ......................................................................... $50,614,000

Budget estimate, 2003 2 3 ...................................................................... 57,421,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 57,421,000

1Does not reflect reductions of $108,000 pursuant to section 349 of Public Law 107–87 and

$93,000 pursuant to section 1106 of Public Law 107–117. Does not reflect emergency supplemental funding of $1,300,000 pursuant to Public Law 107–117. 2Does not include reimbursements of $3,524,000 from FHWA, $2,000,000 from FTA,

$2,000,000 from FAA; and $100,000 from NTSB. 3 Excludes CSRS/FEHB accruals of $2,532,000.

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 $57,421,000.

151

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation Crediting offsetting collections

Appropriations, 2002 1 ...................................................................................................... $18,457,000 $950,000

Budget estimate, 2003 2 ................................................................................................... 19,459,000 1,000,000

Committee recommendation ............................................................................................. 19,459,000 1,000,000

1 Does not reflect reductions of $5,000 pursuant to section 349 of Public Law 107–87 and $4,000 pursuant to section 1106 of Public Law

107–117. 2 Excludes $1,192,300 in CSRS retirement and FEHB accruals.

The Surface Transportation Board was created on January 1,

1996, by Public Law 104–88, the Interstate Commerce Commission

Termination Act of 1995 (ICCTA) . Consistent with the continued

trend toward less regulation of the surface transportation industry,

the ICCTA 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 Committee has provided $19,459,000 for activities of the

Board. Included in the recommended amount is an estimated

$1,000,000 in fees to be collected, which will offset the appropriated

funding. The Board is authorized to credit the fees collected to the

appropriated amount as offsetting collections reducing the general

funds appropriation on a dollar-for-dollar basis as the fees are received and collected.

The Committee’s recommendation will fund a total of 145 fulltime staff equivalent (FTE) positions, if the Board collects the full

$1,000,000 in user fees. Between now and September 30, 2003, 46

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.

(152)

TITLE II—RELATED AGENCIES

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS

COMPLIANCE BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriations, 2002 1 ........................................................................... $5,015,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 5,194,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 5,194,000

1Does not include reduction of $146,000 pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106–113.

The Committee recommends $5,194,000 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, 2002 ............................................................................. $68,650,000

Budget estimate, 2003 ........................................................................... 70,480,000

Committee recommendation ................................................................. 72,500,000

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

153

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 $72,500,000 for the National Transportation

Safety Board. The Committee recommendation is $3,850,000 above

the amount provided in fiscal year 2002 and $2,020,000 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 24 additional FTE’s;

and, to implement financial management programs. This is 13

more FTE’s than requested by the administration for the enhancement of investigative staff.

(154)

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. 304. Modifies a requested provision to prohibit the use of

funds for the salaries and expenses to no more than 100 political

and presidential appointees to the Department of Transportation.

SEC. 316. Modifies a provision regarding the funding of administrative expenses for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the Federal Highway Administration.

SEC. 318. Modifies a provision regarding funds made available to

Alaska or Hawaii for ferry boats, ferry terminals and ferry passenger service.

SEC. 320. Includes a provision exempting a general aviation airport with more than 300,000 annual operations from having to accept scheduled passenger service provided that airport meets specific conditions.

SEC. 322. Includes a provision permitting funds from Public Law

106–69 and Public Law 106–346 for the Wilmington, Delaware

downtown corridor project shall be available for the Wilmington,

Delaware commuter rail improvements.

SEC. 324. Includes a provision transferring the operation and

maintenance of the instrument landing system at the Walnut

Ridge Regional Airport, Arkansas to the Federal Aviation Administration.

SEC. 325. Includes a provision transferring the operation and

maintenance of the air traffic control tower at Williams Gateway

Airport, Arizona to the Federal Aviation Administration.

SEC. 327. Includes a provision regarding a highway in Alaska.

SEC. 329. Includes a provision which modifies section 1211(i) of

Public Law 105–178 to define the Alameda Corridor East and

Southwest Passage, California high priority corridor.

SEC. 330. Provides $160,000,000 to the Secretary of Transportation to make grants for surface transportation projects. The Committee’s recommendation represents a $16,000,000 increase over

the amount that was appropriated in fiscal year 2002. Funds provided for this program for fiscal year 2003 shall be available for the

following activities:

Project Amount

Aberdeen, SD to Geneseo, ND Rail Repair Project ............................. $650,000

Adrian’s Landing Urban Development Roadway Reallignment

Project, Hartford, CT ......................................................................... 5,000,000

Arkwright Connector, Spartanburg SC ............................................... 1,200,000

Aroostook County North-South Highways, ME .................................. 5,000,000

Baseline Road, Isabella, Nottawa, Deerfield, Union, MI .................... 1,000,000

Bowling Green Riverfront Project, KY ................................................. 4,000,000

Bremerton, Ferry Exit Tunnel, WA ..................................................... 3,000,000

155

Project Amount

Broomsfield Wadsworth Interchange, CO ........................................... 4,000,000

Caraway Road Overpass Project, Jonesboro AR ................................. 3,000,000

Cedar Ave. Bus Rapid Transit Project, MN ........................................ 3,000,000

Council Bluffs US–6 Study/Preliminary Design, IA ........................... 2,000,000

David L. Lawrence Convention Center, Riverfront Park, Pittsburgh, PA ............................................................................................ 1,400,000

Dubuque Southwest Arterial, IA .......................................................... 3,000,000

East Chicago, Railroad Ave. Grade Crossing Separation, IN ............ 3,000,000

Elkhart Underpass, IN .......................................................................... 4,000,000

Farrington Highway, HI ....................................................................... 1,000,000

General Mitchell International Airport Passenger Rail Station,

WI ........................................................................................................ 5,000,000

Hana Highway, HI ................................................................................ 1,000,000

I–405 Corridor Tukwila to Lynnwood, WA .......................................... 2,500,000

John Wright Drive—Huntsville, AL ..................................................... 6,600,000

Juneau Heliport, AK ............................................................................. 2,000,000

Lenexa Prairie Star Expressway, KS ................................................... 3,000,000

Matanuska-Susitna Borough road improvements, AK ....................... 5,000,000

Main Ave. Bridge & Pedestrian/Bicycle Amenities, Fargo ND .......... 3,000,000

Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway, Des Moines, IA ............................ 5,000,000

Missouri River Trail, ND ...................................................................... 2,000,000

Montpelier Downtown Redevelopment Project, VT ............................ 2,500,000

Old Dominion University Maglev Project, Norfolk, VA ...................... 2,000,000

Olympic Discovery Trail, WA ............................................................... 1,000,000

Phalen Blvd. Project, St. Paul, MN ...................................................... 5,000,000

Pierre Rail Bypass, SD .......................................................................... 6,000,000

Portland, Safety Enhancement, ME ..................................................... 1,000,000

Route 14 Truck Bypass Project, Huron, SD ........................................ 2,350,000

Saddle Road improvements, HI ............................................................ 4,000,000

South & East Beltway System Construction, NE ............................... 5,000,000

SR 67/605 in Saucier, MS ..................................................................... 5,000,000

SR–104/Hood Canal Bridge East Half Replacement, WA .................. 2,000,000

SR–99/Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seattle Seawall Replacement,

WA ....................................................................................................... 2,500,000

St. Louis Major Arterial Road Improvement/Renovation, MO .......... 4,000,000

Trunk Highway 610/10, Twin Cities, MN ........................................... 3,000,000

Tucson Railroad Grade Crossing Project, AZ ...................................... 1,500,000

Tuscaloosa Downtown Revitalization Project, AL ............................... 5,000,000

Umatilla Intermodal Facility, OR ........................................................ 3,800,000

US–14 Expansion and Improvements, MN ......................................... 2,000,000

US–81 & Highway 30 Arterial Improvements, Columbus, NE ......... 2,500,000

US–93, Westside Kalispell Bypass Project, MT .................................. 2,500,000

US–95, Worley to Mica, stage 2, ID ..................................................... 7,000,000

WSU Composite Applications for Ferries, WA .................................... 1,000,000

WV Route 9, Jefferson and Berkeley Counties, WV ........................... 10,000,000

SEC. 331. Includes a provision directing the Secretary of Transportation to approve the use of national highway system and surface transportation funds for construction of noise barriers in Georgia.

SEC. 332. Modifies 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 award is made under section 1221 of Public

Law 107–178 as amended, and before any award totaling $500,000

or more is announced by the Department or its modal administrations. The administration proposed deleting this provision.

SEC. 333. Includes a provision naming buildings at the William

J. Hughes Technical Center as the ‘‘Frank R. Lautenberg Aviation

Security Complex.’’

156

SEC. 334. Includes a provision requiring a National Academy of

Sciences study regarding the shipment of spent nuclear fuel from

research nuclear reactors.

SEC. 336. Includes a provision which would reimburse the city of

Escanaba, Michigan for the costs incurred for repairing a municipal

dock that is utilized by the United States Coast Guard.

SEC. 337. Includes a provision permitting newly designated urbanized areas as a result of the 2000 decennial census to use FTA

funds for operating costs in the same amount that was provided in

fiscal year 2002. This provision applies for fiscal year 2003 only.

SEC. 339. Includes a provision allowing grants for the construction of an air traffic control tower at Double Eagle II Airport, New

Mexico.

SEC. 340. 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 and Section 410 funds for paid media to support national law enforcement mobilizations on seat belt use and impaired

driving.

SEC. 341. Modifies a provision from the fiscal year 2002 appropriations act regarding Coast Guard Yard in Curtis Bay, Maryland

and other Coast Guard specialized facilities. The administration

proposed deleting this provision.

SEC. 342. Retains a provision prohibiting funds for the Office of

the Secretary of Transportation to be reprogrammed without Congressional notification. The administration proposed deleting this

provision.

SEC. 343. Includes a provision regarding Federal share for certain highway funds.

SEC. 344. Includes a provision regarding the Hoover Dam Bypass

Bridge.

SEC. 346. Retains a provision allowing discretionary bridge funding to be used for historic covered bridges. The administration proposed deleting this provision.

SEC. 347. Modifies a provision requiring quarterly reports on

major Coast Guard acquisition and mission hour emphasis. The administration proposed deleting this provision.

SEC. 348. Includes a provision amending Section 1503 and Section 1101(a)(9) of Public Law 105–178.

SEC. 349. Includes a provision regarding safety which the administration had requested be deleted that reduces the funds provided

for the Transportation Administrative Service Center.

SEC. 350. Extends a provision from the fiscal year 2002 appropriations act regarding the safety of cross-border trucking between

the United States and Mexico. The administration proposed deleting this provision.

SEC. 351. Includes a provision making capital funds available for

FAA facilities and equipment.

SEC. 352. 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.

SEC. 353. Includes a provision regarding funds for the construction of roads and bridges in Lake Charles, Louisiana.

157

SEC. 354. Includes a provision regarding a rescission in the Fiscal Year 2002 Supplemental Appropriations Act for Further Recovery From and Response To Terrorist Attacks on the United States.

(158)

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports accompanying general appropriations bills identify each recommended

amendment which proposes an item of appropriation which is not

made to carry out the provisions of an existing law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously passed by the Senate during that session.

Coast Guard

Operating Expenses

Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

Environmental Compliance and Restoration

Alteration of Bridges

Reserve Training

Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Commercial Space Transportation

Research, Engineering, and Development

Federal Highway Administration

Child Passenger Protection Education Grants

Federal Railroad Administration

Safety and Operations

National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK)

National Transportation Safety Board

COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE

STANDING RULES OF THE SENATE

Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, on July 25, 2002, the

Committee ordered reported en bloc, S. 2801, an original Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and

Related Agencies Programs Appropriations bill, 2003; S. 2809, an

original District of Columbia Appropriations bill, 2003; S. 2808, an

original Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations bill,

2003; and S. 2797, an original Veterans Affairs and Housing and

Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill,

2003, each subject to amendment and each subject to the 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

159

Mr. Kohl

Mrs. Murray

Mr. Dorgan

Mrs. Feinstein

Mr. Durbin

Mr. Johnson

Ms. 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

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.

With respect to this bill, it is the opinion of the Committee that

it is necessary to dispense with these requirements in order to expedite the business of the Senate.

160

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 1 Amount of bill Committeeallocation 1 Amount of bill

Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations

to its subcommittees, fiscal year 2003: Subcommittee on

Transportation and Related Agencies:

Discretionary ........................................................................ 21,300 21,300 62,101 2 59,879

Mandatory ............................................................................ NA ¥117 NA 854

Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:

2003 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 3 23,449

2004 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 21,362

2005 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 8,579

2006 ..................................................................................... .................... .................... .................... 3,817

2007 and future year .......................................................... .................... .................... .................... 4,979

Financial assistance to State and local governments for

2003 ......................................................................................... NA 1,978 NA 9,995

1 Levels approved by the Committee on June 27, as modified on July 25, 2002.

2 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

3 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

NA: Not applicable.

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN T

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2002 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recomme

compared with (∂ or 

2002

appropriation Budg

TITLE I

—DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 67,778 92,460 73,069 ∂5,291 

Immediate Office of the Secretary .................................................................................................................... (1,929) ............................ (2,034) (∂105) Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary ........................................................................................................ (619) ............................ (619) ............................ Immediate Office of the Secretary and Deputy Secretary ................................................................................ ............................ (4,411) ............................ ............................ Office of the General Counsel ........................................................................................................................... (13,355) (15,657) (13,828) (∂473) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy ...................................................................................................... (3,058) ............................ (3,058) ............................ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs ......................................................... (7,421) ............................ (7,471) (∂50) Office of the Under Secretary for Transportation Policy ................................................................................... ............................ (12,453) ............................ ............................ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs ........................................................................... (7,728) (8,375) (7,668) (¥60) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs ............................................................................. (2,282) (2,453) (2,282) ............................ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration ....................................................................................... (19,250) (29,285) (20,380) (∂1,130) Office of Public Affairs ..................................................................................................................................... (1,723) (1,926) (1,723) ............................ Executive Secretariat ......................................................................................................................................... (1,204) ............................ (1,204) ............................ Board of Contract Appeals ................................................................................................................................ (507) (611) (507) ............................ Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization ................................................................................ (1,240) (1,304) (1,304) (∂64) ..........Office of Intelligence and Security ................................................................................................................... (1,321) ............................ ............................ (¥1,321) ..........Office of the Chief Information Officer ............................................................................................................. (6,141) (15,987) (10,991) (∂4,850) 

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... (67,778) (92,462) (73,069) (∂5,291) 

Office of Civil Rights ................................................................................................................................................. 8,500 8,700 8,700 ∂200 ..........Transportation Security Administration ...................................................................................................................... 1,250,000 ............................ ............................ ¥1,250,000 ..........

Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................ ¥1,250,000 ............................ ............................ ∂1,250,000 ..........

Transportation planning, research, and development ............................................................................................... 11,993 10,700 21,000 ∂9,007 Transportation Administrative Service Center ........................................................................................................... (125,323) (131,779) (131,779) (∂6,456) ..........Minority business resource center program ............................................................................................................... 900 900 900 ............................ ..........

(Limitation on guaranteed loans) ..................................................................................................................... (18,367) (18,367) (18,367) ............................ ..........

Minority business outreach ........................................................................................................................................ 3,000 3,000 3,000 ............................ ..........

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN T

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2002 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recomme

compared with (∂ or 

2002

appropriation Budg

New headquarters building ........................................................................................................................................ ............................ 25,000 ............................ ............................ Small community air service development pilot program ......................................................................................... 20,000 ............................ ............................ ¥20,000 ..........Payments to air carriers (Airport & Airway Trust Fund) ........................................................................................... 13,000 ............................ 65,000 ∂52,000 

Emergency supplemental .................................................................................................................................. 50,000 ............................ ............................ ¥50,000 ..........

Total, Office of the Secretary ....................................................................................................................... 1,425,171 140,760 171,669 ¥1,253,502 

Rescission ............................................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ..........Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................... ¥1,250,000 ............................ ............................ ∂1,250,000 ..........

Net total .......................................................................................................................................... 175,171 140,760 171,669 ¥3,502 

Transportation Security Administration

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... ............................ 4,800,000 4,950,000 ∂4,950,000 

Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................ ............................ ¥2,774,000 ¥2,774,000 ¥2,774,000 ..........Emergency supplemental .................................................................................................................................. 94,800 ............................ ............................ ¥94,800 ..........

Total .............................................................................................................................................................. 94,800 2,026,000 2,176,000 ∂2,081,200 

Coast Guard

Operating expenses .................................................................................................................................................... 2,942,000 3,978,456 3,678,456 ∂736,456 

(By transfer) ............................................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ..........

Defense function ............................................................................................................................................... 440,000 340,000 340,000 ¥100,000 ..........Offset for new user fees ................................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥165,000 ............................ ............................ Emergency supplemental .................................................................................................................................. 209,150 ............................ ............................ ¥209,150 ..........

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... 3,591,150 4,153,456 4,018,456 ∂427,306 

Acquisition, construction, and improvements ............................................................................................................ 636,354 725,000 725,000 ∂88,646 ..........

Vessels ............................................................................................................................................................... (89,640) (13,600) (13,600) (¥76,040) ..........Aircraft ............................................................................................................................................................... (9,500) ............................ ............................ (¥9,500) ..........Other equipment ................................................................................................................................................ (79,293) (117,700) (117,700) (∂38,407) ..........

Shore facilities & aids to navigation facilities ................................................................................................ (73,100) (28,700) (48,700) (¥24,400) Personnel and related support .......................................................................................................................... (64,631) (65,000) (65,000) (∂369) ..........Integrated Deepwater Systems .......................................................................................................................... (320,190) (500,000) (480,000) (∂159,810) 

Subtotal, AC&I .............................................................................................................................................. (636,354) (725,000) (725,000) (∂88,646) ..........

Environmental compliance and restoration ............................................................................................................... 16,927 17,000 17,000 ∂73 ..........Alteration of bridges .................................................................................................................................................. 15,466 ............................ 14,000 ¥1,466 Retired pay ................................................................................................................................................................. 876,346 889,000 889,000 ∂12,654 ..........Reserve training ......................................................................................................................................................... 83,194 86,522 86,522 ∂3,328 ..........Research, development, test, and evaluation ........................................................................................................... 20,222 22,000 22,000 ∂1,778 ..........

Total, Coast Guard ........................................................................................................................................ 5,239,659 6,057,978 5,771,978 ∂532,319 

(By transfer) ................................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ..........

Offset for new user fees ...................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥165,000 ............................ ............................ 

Net total .......................................................................................................................................... 5,239,659 5,892,978 5,771,978 ∂532,319 

Federal Aviation Administration

Operations .................................................................................................................................................................. 6,886,000 7,077,203 7,081,203 ∂195,203 

Air traffic services ............................................................................................................................................. (5,452,871) ............................ (5,696,037) (∂243,166) (∂Aviation regulation and certification ................................................................................................................ (768,769) ............................ (839,467) (∂70,698) (Civil aviation security ....................................................................................................................................... (150,154) ............................ ............................ (¥150,154) ..........Research and acquisition ................................................................................................................................. (195,799) ............................ (207,600) (∂11,801) (Commercial space transportation ..................................................................................................................... (12,456) ............................ (12,325) (¥131) Financial services .............................................................................................................................................. (50,284) ............................ (48,782) (¥1,502) Human resources ............................................................................................................................................... (69,516) ............................ (80,260) (∂10,744) Regional coordination ........................................................................................................................................ (85,943) ............................ (82,192) (¥3,751) Staff offices ....................................................................................................................................................... (109,208) ............................ (114,540) (∂5,332) (Undistributed ..................................................................................................................................................... (¥9,000) ............................ ............................ (∂9,000) ..........

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... (6,886,000) ............................ (7,081,203) (∂195,203) (∂

Emergency supplemental .................................................................................................................................. 200,000 ............................ ............................ ¥200,000 ..........

Facilities & equipment (Airport & Airway Trust Fund) .............................................................................................. 2,914,000 2,981,022 2,981,022 ∂67,022 ..........

Rescission (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) ..................................................................................................... ¥15,000 ............................ ............................ ∂15,000 ..........Emergency supplemental .................................................................................................................................. 108,500 ............................ ............................ ¥108,500 ..........

Research, engineering, and development (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) ............................................................. 195,000 124,000 124,000 ¥71,000 ..........

Emergency supplemental .................................................................................................................................. 50,000 ............................ ............................ ¥50,000 ..........

Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund):

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. (1,800,000) (3,100,000) (3,100,000) (∂1,300,000) ..........

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN T

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2002 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recomme

compared with (∂ or 

2002

appropriation Budg

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (3,300,000) (3,400,000) (3,400,000) (∂100,000) ..........Rescission of contract authorization ................................................................................................................ ¥301,720 ............................ ............................ ∂301,720 ..........Emergency supplemental .................................................................................................................................. 175,000 ............................ ............................ ¥175,000 ..........Small community air service pilot program(non-add) ..................................................................................... (20,000) ............................ (20,000) ............................ 

Net subtotal .................................................................................................................................................. (3,173,280) (3,400,000) (3,400,000) (∂226,720) ..........

Aviation insurance revolving fund ............................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ..........Essential air service (by transfer) ............................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ..........

Total, Federal Aviation Administration ......................................................................................................... 10,528,500 10,182,225 10,186,225 ¥342,275 

(Limitations on obligations) ................................................................................................................ (3,300,000) (3,400,000) (3,400,000) (∂100,000) ..........

Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................... (13,828,500) (13,582,225) (13,586,225) (¥242,275) 

Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... ¥316,720 ............................ ............................ ∂316,720 ..........

Net total .......................................................................................................................................... (13,511,780) (13,582,225) (13,586,225) (∂74,445) 

Federal Highway Administration

Limitation on administrative expenses ...................................................................................................................... (311,000) (317,732) (317,732) (∂6,732) ..........Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund): 1

(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (27,280,000) (27,537,787) (31,800,000) (∂4,520,000) (∂Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) ....................................................................................................... (4,543,000) (¥4,369,000) ............................ (¥4,543,000) (∂RABA transfer to FMCSA ................................................................................................................................... (¥23,896) ............................ ............................ (∂23,896) ..........

Border enforcement program (non-add) .................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ (106,967) (∂106,967) (

Subtotal, limitation on obligations ............................................................................................................... (31,799,104) (23,168,787) (31,800,000) (∂896) (∂

(Exempt obligations) ......................................................................................................................................... (965,308) (892,767) (892,767) (¥72,541) ..........(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. (30,000,000) (29,000,000) (32,000,000) (∂2,000,000) (∂

Appalachian development highway system ............................................................................................................... 200,000 ............................ 200,000 ............................ 

State infrastructure banks (rescission) ..................................................................................................................... ¥5,750 ............................ ............................ ∂5,750 ..........Value pricing project (rescission) (Highway Trust Fund) (sec. 318) ........................................................................ ¥9,231 ............................ ............................ ∂9,231 ..........TIFIA (rescission) (Highway Trust Fund) (sec. 318) .................................................................................................. ¥43,742 ............................ ............................ ∂43,742 ..........Miscellaneous appropriations (Highway Trust Fund) (emergency supplemental) ..................................................... 100,000 ............................ ............................ ¥100,000 ..........Emergency relief program (emergency supplemental) .............................................................................................. 75,000 ............................ ............................ ¥75,000 ..........

Total, Federal Highway Administration ......................................................................................................... 375,000 ............................ 200,000 ¥175,000 

(Limitations on obligations) ................................................................................................................ (31,799,104) (23,168,787) (31,800,000) (∂896) (∂(Exempt obligations) ............................................................................................................................ (965,308) (892,767) (892,767) (¥72,541) ..........

Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................... (33,139,412) (24,061,554) (32,892,767) (¥246,645) (∂

Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... ¥58,723 ............................ ............................ ∂58,723 ..........

Net total .......................................................................................................................................... (33,080,689) (24,061,554) (32,892,767) (¥187,922) (∂

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

Motor carrier safety (limitation on administrative expenses) (limitation on obligations) ........................................ (110,000) (114,464) (114,464) (∂4,464) ..........

Rescission .......................................................................................................................................................... ¥6,665 ............................ ............................ ∂6,665 ..........

National motor carrier safety program (Highway Trust Fund):

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. (205,896) (190,000) (190,000) (¥15,896) ..........(Limitation on obligations) ................................................................................................................................ (182,000) (190,000) (190,000) (∂8,000) ..........RABA transfer from FHWA:

Border-State grants .................................................................................................................................. (18,000) ............................ ............................ (¥18,000) ..........State commercial driver’s license ............................................................................................................ (5,896) ............................ ............................ (¥5,896) ..........Motor carrier safety assistance grants .................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ..........

Subtotal, RABA ..................................................................................................................................... (23,896) ............................ ............................ (¥23,896) ..........Subtotal, limitation on obligations ...................................................................................................... (205,896) (190,000) (190,000) (¥15,896) ..........

Border enforcement program (Highway Trust Fund) ................................................................................................. 25,866 59,967 ............................ ¥25,866 

Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin ................................................................................................... 25,866 59,967 ............................ ¥25,866 

(Limitations on obligations) ................................................................................................................ (315,896) (304,464) (304,464) (¥11,432) ..........

Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................... (341,762) (364,431) (304,464) (¥37,298) 

Rescissions .......................................................................................................................................... ¥6,665 ............................ ............................ ∂6,665 ..........

Net total .......................................................................................................................................... (335,097) (364,431) (304,464) (¥30,633) 

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN T

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2002 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recomme

compared with (∂ or 

2002

appropriation Budg

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Operations and research ............................................................................................................................................ 127,780 126,445 141,000 ∂13,220 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 ............................................................................................................... (200,264) (200,445) (215,000) (∂14,736) 

Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund):

(Liquidation of contract authorization) ............................................................................................................. (223,000) (225,000) (225,000) (∂2,000) ..........(Limitation on obligations):

Highway safety programs (Sec. 402) ....................................................................................................... (160,000) (165,000) (165,000) (∂5,000) ..........Occupant protection incentive grants (Sec. 405) .................................................................................... (15,000) (20,000) (20,000) (∂5,000) ..........Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants (Sec. 410) ................................................................ (38,000) (40,000) (40,000) (∂2,000) ..........State highway safety data grants (Sec. 411) ......................................................................................... (10,000) ............................ ............................ (¥10,000) ..........

Subtotal, limitation on obligations ...................................................................................................... (223,000) (225,000) (225,000) (∂2,000) ..........Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin .................................................................................... 129,780 128,445 143,000 ∂13,220 

(Limitations on obligations) ....................................................................................................... (295,000) (297,000) (297,000) (∂2,000) ..........

Total budgetary resources ...................................................................................................... (424,780) (425,445) (440,000) (∂15,220) 

Rescissions ................................................................................................................................. ¥1,516 ............................ ............................ ∂1,516 ..........

Net total ................................................................................................................................. (423,264) (425,445) (440,000) (∂16,736) 

Federal Railroad Administration

Safety and operations ................................................................................................................................................ 110,857 118,264 118,264 ∂7,407 ..........

Offset for new user fees ................................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥45,000 ............................ ............................ Emergency supplemental .................................................................................................................................. 6,000 ............................ ............................ ¥6,000 ..........

Railroad research and development .......................................................................................................................... 29,000 28,325 29,325 ∂325 

Offset for new user fees ................................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥14,000 ............................ ............................ 

Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment project (advance appropriations, fiscal year 2001, fiscal year 2002, fiscal

year 2003) .............................................................................................................................................................. 20,000 20,000 20,000 ............................ ..........

Next generation high-speed rail ................................................................................................................................ 32,300 23,200 30,000 ¥2,300 Alaska Railroad rehabilitation ................................................................................................................................... 20,000 ............................ 25,000 ∂5,000 Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation ........................................................................................... 521,476 521,476 1,200,000 ∂678,524 

Emergency supplemental .................................................................................................................................. 100,000 ............................ ............................ ¥100,000 ..........

Total, Federal Railroad Administration ......................................................................................................... 839,633 711,265 1,422,589 ∂582,956 

Offset for new user fees ...................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥59,000 ............................ ............................ 

Net total .......................................................................................................................................... 839,633 652,265 1,422,589 ∂582,956 

Federal Transit Administration

Administrative expenses ............................................................................................................................................. 13,400 14,600 14,600 ∂1,200 ..........Administrative expenses (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (limitation on obligations) ........................ (53,600) (58,400) (58,400) (∂4,800) ..........

Subtotal, Administrative expenses ............................................................................................................... (67,000) (73,000) (73,000) (∂6,000) ..........

Formula grants ........................................................................................................................................................... 718,400 767,800 767,800 ∂49,400 ..........

Emergency supplemental .................................................................................................................................. 23,500 ............................ ............................ ¥23,500 ..........

Formula grants (Highway Trust Fund) (limitation on obligations) ........................................................................... (2,873,600) (3,071,200) (3,071,200) (∂197,600) ..........

Subtotal, Formula grants .............................................................................................................................. (3,615,500) (3,839,000) (3,839,000) (∂223,500) ..........

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) ............................ ..........

Subtotal, University transportation research ................................................................................................ (6,000) (6,000) (6,000) ............................ ..........

Transit planning and research .................................................................................................................................. 23,000 24,200 24,200 ∂1,200 ..........Transit planning and research (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (limitation on obligations) .............. (93,000) (97,800) (97,800) (∂4,800) ..........

Flexible funding ................................................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ..........

Subtotal, Transit planning and research ..................................................................................................... (116,000) (122,000) (122,000) (∂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) ............................ ..........

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN T

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2002 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recomme

compared with (∂ or 

2002

appropriation Budg

Metropolitan planning ....................................................................................................................................... (55,422) (60,386) (60,386) (∂4,964) ..........State planning ................................................................................................................................................... (11,578) (12,614) (12,614) (∂1,036) ..........National planning and research ....................................................................................................................... (31,500) (31,500) (31,500) ............................ ..........

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... (116,000) (122,000) (122,000) (∂6,000) ..........

Trust fund share of expenses (Highway Trust Fund) (liquidation of contract authorization) .................................. (5,397,800) (5,781,000) (5,781,000) (∂383,200) ..........Capital investment grants ......................................................................................................................................... 568,200 607,200 607,200 ∂39,000 ..........Capital investment grants (General purpose) ........................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 100,000 ∂100,000 

Emergency supplemental .................................................................................................................................. 100,000 ............................ ............................ ¥100,000 ..........

Capital investment grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (limitation on obligations) .................... (2,272,800) (2,428,800) (2,428,800) (∂156,000) ..........

Flexible funding ................................................................................................................................................. ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ..........

Subtotal, Capital investment grants ............................................................................................................ (2,941,000) (3,036,000) (3,136,000) (∂195,000) (

Fixed guideway modernization .......................................................................................................................... (1,136,400) (1,214,400) (1,214,400) (∂78,000) ..........Buses and bus-related facilities ...................................................................................................................... (568,200) (607,200) (607,200) (∂39,000) ..........New starts ......................................................................................................................................................... (1,136,400) (1,214,400) (1,214,400) (∂78,000) ..........

Subtotal ......................................................................................................................................................... (2,841,000) (3,036,000) (3,036,000) (∂195,000) ..........

Job access and reverse commute grants .................................................................................................................. 25,000 30,000 30,000 ∂5,000 ..........

(Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (limitation on obligations) ....................................................... (100,000) (120,000) (120,000) (∂20,000) ..........

Subtotal, Job access and reverse commute grants ..................................................................................... (125,000) (150,000) (150,000) (∂25,000) ..........Total, Federal Transit Administration ........................................................................................................... 1,472,700 1,445,000 1,545,000 ∂72,300 

(Limitations on obligations) ................................................................................................................ (5,397,800) (5,781,000) (5,781,000) (∂383,200) ..........

Total budgetary resources ............................................................................................................... (6,870,500) (7,226,000) (7,326,000) (∂455,500) (

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund) .............................................................................. 13,345 14,086 13,345 ............................ 

Research and Special Programs Administration

Research and special programs:

Hazardous materials safety .............................................................................................................................. 21,217 23,079 23,079 ∂1,862 ..........Offset for new user fees ................................................................................................................................... ............................ ¥6,000 ............................ ............................ Emergency transportation ................................................................................................................................. 1,897 2,058 2,058 ∂161 ..........Research and technology .................................................................................................................................. 2,784 2,854 2,854 ∂70 ..........Program and administrative support ................................................................................................................ 11,381 16,387 15,734 ∂4,353 

Subtotal, research and special programs .................................................................................................... 37,279 38,378 43,725 ∂6,446 

Emergency supplemental (emergency trans) .................................................................................................... 2,500 ............................ ............................ ¥2,500 ..........

Pipeline safety:

Pipeline Safety Fund ......................................................................................................................................... 50,386 56,385 56,385 ∂5,999 ..........Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund ............................................................................................................................. 7,864 7,472 7,472 ¥392 ..........Pipeline safety reserve ...................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ..........

Subtotal, Pipeline safety program (incl reserve) ......................................................................................... 58,250 63,857 63,857 ∂5,607 ..........

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 ............................................................................................. 98,229 108,435 107,782 ∂9,553 

Rescission ............................................................................................................................................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ..........

Net total .......................................................................................................................................... 98,229 108,435 107,782 ∂9,553 

Office of Inspector General

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 50,614 57,421 57,421 ∂6,807 ..........

Emergency supplemental .................................................................................................................................. 1,300 ............................ ............................ ¥1,300 ..........

Total .............................................................................................................................................................. 51,914 57,421 57,421 ∂5,507 ..........

Surface Transportation Board

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 18,457 19,459 19,459 ∂1,002 ..........

Offsetting collections ........................................................................................................................................ ¥950 ¥1,000 ¥1,000 ¥50 ..........

Total .............................................................................................................................................................. 17,507 18,459 18,459 ∂952 ..........

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN T

FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003

—Continued

[In thousands of dollars]

Item 2002 appropriation Budget estimate Committee recommendation

Senate Committee recomme

compared with (∂ or 

2002

appropriation Budg

Bureau of Transportation Statistics

Office of Airline Information (Airport & Airway Trust Fund) ..................................................................................... ............................ 3,965 ............................ ............................ 

General Provisions

Amtrak Reform Council (Sec. 329) ............................................................................................................................ 225 ............................ ............................ ¥225 ..........Alaska highway obligation adjustment ...................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ..........Surface transportation projects (sec. 330) (sec. 1106) ............................................................................................ 148,300 ............................ 160,000 ∂11,700 Restoration of contract authorization (Sec. 

ll

) ................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ 200,000 ∂200,000 

Total, General provisions .............................................................................................................................. 148,525 ............................ 360,000 ∂211,475 Net total, title I, Department of Transportation ........................................................................................... 18,827,005 20,724,006 22,173,468 ∂3,346,463 ∂

Appropriations ...................................................................................................................................... (17,914,879) (20,724,006) (22,173,468) (∂4,258,589) (∂Emergency ............................................................................................................................................ (1,295,750) ............................ ............................ (¥1,295,750) ..........Offset for new user fees ...................................................................................................................... (¥1,250,000) (¥230,000) ............................ (∂1,250,000) (Rescission of contract authority .......................................................................................................... (¥303,236) ............................ ............................ (∂303,236) ..........(By transfer) ......................................................................................................................................... ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................ ..........(Limitations on obligations) ................................................................................................................ (41,107,800) (32,951,251) (41,582,464) (∂474,664) (∂(Exempt obligations) ............................................................................................................................ (965,308) (892,767) (892,767) (¥72,541) ..........

Net total budgetary resources ......................................................................................................... (60,900,113) (54,568,024) (64,648,699) (∂3,748,586) (∂1

TITLE II

—RELATED AGENCIES

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 5,015 5,194 5,194 ∂179 ..........

National Transportation Safety Board

Salaries and expenses ............................................................................................................................................... 68,000 70,480 72,500 ∂4,500 

Emergency supplemental .................................................................................................................................. 650 ............................ ............................ ¥650 ..........

Total .............................................................................................................................................................. 68,650 70,480 72,500 ∂3,850 Total, title II, Related Agencies .................................................................................................................... 73,665 75,674 77,694 ∂4,029 

1 Reflects pending amendment.

Æ