H. R. 3—58
(B) NOTIFICATION.—At least 60 days before issuing a 
letter under subparagraph (A) or entering into a full 
funding grant agreement, the Secretary shall notify in 
writing the Committee on Transportation and Infrastruc-
ture of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
on Environment and Public Works of the Senate of the 
proposed letter or agreement. The Secretary shall include 
with the notification a copy of the proposed letter or agree-
ment as well as the evaluations and ratings for the project. 
(C) NOT AN OBLIGATION.—The issuance of a letter is 
deemed not to be an obligation under sections 1108(c), 
1108(d), 1501, and 1502(a) of title 31, United States Code, 
or an administrative commitment. 
(D) OBLIGATION
OR
COMMITMENT.—An obligation or 
administrative commitment may be made only when con-
tract authority is allocated to a project. 
(2) FULL FUNDING GRANT AGREEMENT.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—A project financed under this sub-
section shall be carried out through a full funding grant 
agreement. The Secretary shall enter into a full funding 
grant agreement based on the evaluations and ratings 
required under subsection (f)(7). 
(B) TERMS.—If the Secretary makes a full funding 
grant agreement with an applicant, the agreement shall—
(i) establish the terms of participation by the 
United States Government in a project under this sec-
tion; 
(ii) establish the maximum amount of Government 
financial assistance for the project; 
(iii) cover the period of time for completing the 
project, including a period extending beyond the period 
of an authorization; and 
(iv) make timely and efficient management of the 
project easier according to the laws of the United 
States. 
(C) AGREEMENT.—An agreement under this paragraph 
obligates an amount of available budget authority specified 
in law and may include a commitment, contingent on 
amounts to be specified in law in advance for commitments 
under this paragraph, to obligate an additional amount 
from future available budget authority specified in law. 
The agreement shall state that the contingent commitment 
is not an obligation of the Government. Interest and other 
financing costs of efficiently carrying out a part of the 
project within a reasonable time are a cost of carrying 
out the project under a full funding grant agreement, except 
that eligible costs may not be more than the cost of the 
most favorable financing terms reasonably available for 
the project at the time of borrowing. The applicant shall 
certify, in a way satisfactory to the Secretary, that the 
applicant has shown reasonable diligence in seeking the 
most favorable financing terms. 
(3) AMOUNTS.—The total estimated amount of future obliga-
tions of the Government and contingent commitments to incur 
obligations covered by all outstanding letters of intent and 
full funding grant agreements may be not more than the greater 
of the amount authorized to carry out this section or an amount
H. R. 3—59
equivalent to the last 2 fiscal years of funding authorized 
to carry out this section less an amount the Secretary reason-
ably estimates is necessary for grants under this section not 
covered by a letter. The total amount covered by new letters 
and contingent commitments included in full funding grant 
agreements may be not more than a limitation specified in 
law. 
(h) GRANT REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—A grant for a project under this section 
shall be subject to all of the requirements of title 23, United 
States Code. 
(2) OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Secretary shall 
require that all grants under this section be subject to all 
terms, conditions, and requirements that the Secretary decides 
are necessary or appropriate for purposes of this section, 
including requirements for the disposition of net increases in 
value of real property resulting from the project assisted under 
this section. 
(i) GOVERNMENT’S
SHARE
OF
PROJECT
COST.—Based on 
engineering studies, studies of economic feasibility, and information 
on the expected use of equipment or facilities, the Secretary shall 
estimate the cost of a project receiving assistance under this section. 
A grant for the project is for 80 percent of the project cost, unless 
the grant recipient requests a lower grant percentage. A refund 
or reduction of the remainder may be made only if a refund of 
a proportional amount of the grant of the Government is made 
at the same time. 
(j) FISCAL CAPACITY CONSIDERATIONS.—If the Secretary gives 
priority consideration to financing projects that include more than 
the non-Government share required under subsection (i) the Sec-
retary shall give equal consideration to differences in the fiscal 
capacity of State and local governments. 
(k) REPORTS.—
(1) ANNUAL REPORT.—Not later than the first Monday in 
February of each year, the Secretary shall submit to the Com-
mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of 
Representatives and the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works of the Senate a report that includes a proposal on 
the allocation of amounts to be made available to finance grants 
under this section. 
(2) RECOMMENDATIONS ON FUNDING.—The annual report 
under this paragraph shall include evaluations and ratings, 
as required under subsection (f). The report shall also include 
recommendations of projects for funding based on the evalua-
tions and ratings and on existing commitments and anticipated 
funding levels for the next 3 fiscal years and for the next 
10 fiscal years based on information currently available to 
the Secretary. 
(l) APPLICABILITY OF TITLE 23.—Funds made available to carry 
out this section shall be available for obligation in the same manner 
as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, 
United States Code; except that such funds shall not be transferable 
and shall remain available until expended and the Federal share 
of the cost of a project under this section shall be as provided 
in this section. 
(m) DESIGNATED PROJECTS.—Notwithstanding any other provi-
sion of this section, the Secretary shall allocate for each of fiscal
H. R. 3—60
years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, from funds made available 
to carry out this section, 10 percent, 20 percent, 25 percent, 25 
percent, and 20 percent respectively, of the following amounts for 
grants to carry out the following projects under this section:
No. 
State 
Project Description 
Amount 
1. 
CA 
Bakersfield Beltway System ..................................
$140,000,000
2. 
VA, WV, 
OH 
Heartland Corridor Project including multiple 
intermodal facility improvements and im-
provements to facilitate the movement of 
intermodal freight from VA to OH ....................
$90,000,000
3. 
CA 
Roadway improvements in and around the 
former Norton Air Force Base as part of the 
Inland Empire Goods Movement Gateway 
project ..................................................................
$55,000,000
4. 
MI 
Planning, design, and construction of a new 
American border plaza at the Blue Water 
Bridge in or near Port Huron, MI .....................
$20,000,000
5. 
IL 
Construction of O’Hare Bypass/Elgin O’Hare Ex-
tension .................................................................
$140,000,000
6. 
WI 
Reconstruction of the Marquette Interchange, 
Milwaukee WI .....................................................
$30,000,000
7. 
IL 
CREATE ..................................................................
$100,000,000
8. 
OR 
I–5 Bridge repair, replacement and associated 
improvements in the I–5 corridor ......................
$160,000,000
9. 
CA 
Alameda Corridor East ..........................................
$125,000,000
10. 
IL 
Mississippi River Bridge and related roads .........
$150,000,000
11. 
CA 
Transbay Terminal .................................................
$27,000,000
12. 
NY 
Cross Harbor Freight Movement Project, New 
York .....................................................................
$100,000,000
13. 
WA 
Alaska Way Viaduct and Seawall Replacement ..
$100,000,000
14. 
CA 
Gerald Desmond/I–710 Gateway Project ..............
$100,000,000
15. 
CO 
Denver’s Union Station ..........................................
$50,000,000
16. 
MN 
Union Depot Multimodal Transit Facility ............
$50,000,000
17. 
CA 
Sacramento Intermodal Station ............................
$3,000,000
18. 
NJ 
Liberty Corridor .....................................................
$100,000,000
19. 
NM 
Relocate the El Paso, TX rail yard to Santa Te-
resa ......................................................................
$14,000,000
H. R. 3—61
No. 
State 
Project Description 
Amount 
20. 
PA 
Route 23/US 422 Interchange Modernization and 
Route 363/US 422 Interchange Improvement 
Project and U.S. 422 Widening, Montgomery 
County, PA ..........................................................
$20,000,000
21. 
PA 
Route 28 Widening and improvements, Alle-
gheny County, PA ...............................................
$15,000,000
22. 
PA 
Improvements to I–80, Monroe County, PA .........
$15,000,000
23. 
SC 
I–73, Construction of I–73 from Myrtle Beach, 
SC to I–95, ending at the North Carolina 
State line .............................................................
$40,000,000
24. 
VA 
Rail Relocation to route 164/I–664 rail corridor, 
Portsmouth ..........................................................
$15,000,000
25. 
WA 
Replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and 
Seawall in Seattle ...............................................
$120,000,000
SEC. 1302. NATIONAL CORRIDOR INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT 
PROGRAM. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish and implement 
a program to make allocations to States for highway construction 
projects in corridors of national significance to promote economic 
growth and international or interregional trade pursuant to the 
selection factors provided in this section. A State must submit 
an application to the Secretary in order to receive an allocation 
under this section. 
(b) SELECTION PROCESS.—
(1) PRIORITY.—In the selection process under this section, 
the Secretary shall give priority to projects in corridors that 
are a part of, or will be designated as part of, the Dwight 
D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense High-
ways after completion of the work described in the application 
received by the Secretary and to any project that will be com-
pleted within 5 years of the date of the allocation of funds 
for the project. 
(2) SELECTION FACTORS.—In making allocations under this 
section, the Secretary shall consider the following factors: 
(A) The extent to which the corridor provides a link 
between two existing segments of the Interstate System. 
(B) The extent to which the project will facilitate major 
multistate or regional mobility and economic growth and 
development in areas underserved by existing highway 
infrastructure. 
(C) The extent to which commercial vehicle traffic in 
the corridor—
(i) has increased since the date of enactment of 
the 
North 
American 
Free 
Trade 
Agreement 
Implementation Act (16 U.S.C. 4401 et seq.); and 
(ii) is projected to increase in the future. 
(D) The extent to which international truck-borne 
commodities move through the corridor.
H. R. 3—62
(E) The extent to which the project will make improve-
ments to an existing segment of the Interstate System 
that will result in a decrease in congestion. 
(F) The reduction in commercial and other travel time 
through a major freight corridor expected as a result of 
the project. 
(G) The value of the cargo carried by commercial 
vehicle traffic in the corridor and the economic costs arising 
from congestion in the corridor. 
(H) The extent of leveraging of Federal funds provided 
to carry out this section, including—
(i) use of innovative financing; 
(ii) combination with funding provided under other 
sections of this Act and title 23, United States Code; 
and 
(iii) combination with other sources of Federal, 
State, local, or private funding. 
(c) APPLICABILITY OF TITLE 23.—Funds made available by sec-
tion 1101(a)(10) of this Act to carry out this section shall be avail-
able for obligation in the same manner as if such funds were 
apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code; except 
that such funds shall remain available until expended, and the 
Federal share of the cost of a project under this section shall 
be determined in accordance with section 120 of such title. 
(d) STATE DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘State’’ has the 
meaning such term has in section 101(a) of title 23, United States 
Code. 
(e) DESIGNATED PROJECTS.—The Secretary shall allocate for 
each of fiscal years 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009, from funds 
made available to carry out this section, 10 percent, 20 percent, 
25 percent, 25 percent, and 20 percent respectively, of the following 
amounts for grants to carry out the following projects under this 
section:
No. 
State 
Project Description 
Amount 
1. 
TX, AR, 
MS, TN, 
KY, IN 
Planning, Design, and Construction of I–69 in 
TX, LA, AR, MS, TN, KY, and IN .....................
$50,000,000
2. 
LA 
Improvements to Louisiana Highway 1 between 
the Caminada Bridge and the intersection of 
LA Highway 1 and U.S. 90 ................................
$20,000,000
3. 
MD 
Planning, design, and construction of the Inter 
County Connector in Montgomery and Prince 
Georges County in Maryland .............................
$10,000,000
4. 
CA 
Centennial Corridor Loop in Bakersfield .............
$330,000,000
5. 
VA 
Construction of dedicated truck lanes on addi-
tional capacity in I–81 in VA .............................
$100,000,000
6. 
CA 
Design, Planning and Construction of State 
Route 178 in Bakersfield ....................................
$100,000,000
H. R. 3—63
No. 
State 
Project Description 
Amount 
7. 
CA 
Widening of Rosedale Highway between SR 43 
and SR 99 in Bakersfield and widening of SR 
178 between SR 99 and D street in Bakers-
field ......................................................................
$60,000,000
8. 
LA 
Construction of the 36 mile segment of I–49 in 
LA between the Arkansas State line and I–
220 in Shreveport ...............................................
$150,000,000
9. 
AR 
Construction of an extension of I–530 from Pine 
Bluff, Arkansas to Wilmar, Arkansas to inter-
state specifications ..............................................
$40,000,000
10. 
IL 
Construction of the U.S. I–80 to I–88 North-
South Connector in Illinois ................................
$152,000,000
11. 
WI 
Construction and reconstruction of the U.S. 
Highway 41 corridor between Milwaukee and 
Green Bay, Wisconsin ........................................
$30,000,000
12. 
IL 
Construction of Route 34 Interchange and im-
provements in Illinois .........................................
$55,000,000
13. 
CA 
Increase capacity on I–80 between Sacrament/
Placer County Line and SR 65 ..........................
$50,000,000
14. 
AK 
Planning, design, and construction of Knik Arm 
Bridge ..................................................................
$30,000,000
15. 
IA, IL 
Planning, design, right-of-way acquisition and 
construction of the Interstate Route 74 bridge 
from Bettendorf, Iowa, to Moline, Illinois ........
$15,000,000
16. 
AR 
Planning, design, and construction of the I–49/
Bella Vista Bypass in Arkansas ........................
$20,000,000
17. 
SC 
Planning, design, and construction of the I–73 
corridor of national significance in South Caro-
lina .......................................................................
$10,000,000
18. 
CA 
I–405 HOV lane ......................................................
$100,000,000
19. 
AR 
I–69 Corridor, including the Great River Bridge 
$75,000,000
20. 
MN 
Falls-to-Falls Corridor ...........................................
$50,000,000
21. 
DC 
Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge ...................
$75,000,000
22. 
CT 
Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge .............................
$35,000,000
23. 
IN 
I–80 Improvements ................................................
$10,000,000
24. 
CA 
State Route 4 East Upgrade ..................................
$20,000,000
25. 
LA 
LA 1 Replacement ..................................................
$5,000,000
26. 
AZ 
State Route 85 Upgrade ........................................
$3,000,000
27. 
WV 
I–73/I–74 Corridor ..................................................
$50,000,000
H. R. 3—64
No. 
State 
Project Description 
Amount 
28. 
LA 
Construction of I–49 North from Shreveport, 
Louisiana to Arkansas State line (I–220 to AR 
Line) .....................................................................
$27,500,000
29. 
LA 
Transportation improvements to I–49 South .......
$27,500,000
30. 
OK 
Ports to Plain Corridor in Oklahoma ...................
$35,000,000
31. 
TN 
For design, ROW and construction of Interstate 
69 .........................................................................
$100,000,000
32. 
CO 
U.S. 287, Ports-to-Plains Corridor ........................
$3,000,000
33. 
OK 
State of Oklahoma I–44 from Riverside to Yale 
Avenue in Tulsa ..................................................
$110,000,000
SEC. 1303. COORDINATED BORDER INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM. 
(a) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—The Secretary shall implement a 
coordinated border infrastructure program under which the Sec-
retary shall distribute funds to border States to improve the safe 
movement of motor vehicles at or across the border between the 
United States and Canada and the border between the United 
States and Mexico. 
(b) ELIGIBLE USES.—Subject to subsection (d), a State may 
use funds apportioned under this section only for—
(1) improvements in a border region to existing transpor-
tation and supporting infrastructure that facilitate cross-border 
motor vehicle and cargo movements; 
(2) construction of highways and related safety and safety 
enforcement facilities in a border region that facilitate motor 
vehicle and cargo movements related to international trade; 
(3) operational improvements in a border region, including 
improvements relating to electronic data interchange and use 
of telecommunications, to expedite cross border motor vehicle 
and cargo movement; 
(4) modifications to regulatory procedures to expedite safe 
and efficient cross border motor vehicle and cargo movements; 
and 
(5) international coordination of transportation planning, 
programming, and border operation with Canada and Mexico 
relating to expediting cross border motor vehicle and cargo 
movements. 
(c) APPORTIONMENT OF FUNDS.—On October 1 of each fiscal 
year, the Secretary shall apportion among border States sums 
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section for such 
fiscal year as follows: 
(1) 20 percent in the ratio that—
(A) the total number of incoming commercial trucks 
that pass through the land border ports of entry within 
the boundaries of a border State, as determined by the 
Secretary; bears to 
(B) the total number of incoming commercial trucks 
that pass through such ports of entry within the boundaries 
of all the border States, as determined by the Secretary. 
(2) 30 percent in the ratio that—
H. R. 3—65
(A) the total number of incoming personal motor 
vehicles and incoming buses that pass through land border 
ports of entry within the boundaries of a border State, 
as determined by the Secretary; bears to 
(B) the total number of incoming personal motor 
vehicles and incoming buses that pass through such ports 
of entry within the boundaries of all the border States, 
as determined by the Secretary. 
(3) 25 percent in the ratio that—
(A) the total weight of incoming cargo by commercial 
trucks that pass through land border ports of entry within 
the boundaries of a border State, as determined by the 
Secretary; bears to 
(B) the total weight of incoming cargo by commercial 
trucks that pass through such ports of entry within the 
boundaries of all the border States, as determined by the 
Secretary. 
(4) 25 percent of the ratio that—
(A) the total number of land border ports of entry 
within the boundaries of a border State, as determined 
by the Secretary; bears to 
(B) the total number of land border ports of entry 
within the boundaries of all the border States, as deter-
mined by the Secretary. 
(d) PROJECTS IN CANADA OR MEXICO.—A project in Canada 
or Mexico, proposed by a border State to directly and predominantly 
facilitate cross-border motor vehicle and cargo movements at an 
international port of entry into the border region of the State, 
may be constructed using funds apportioned to the State under 
this section if, before obligation of those funds, Canada or Mexico, 
or the political subdivision of Canada or Mexico that is responsible 
for the operation of the facility to be constructed, provides assur-
ances satisfactory to the Secretary that any facility constructed 
under this subsection will be—
(1) constructed in accordance with standards equivalent 
to applicable standards in the United States; and 
(2) properly maintained and used over the useful life of 
the facility for the purpose for which the Secretary is allocating 
such funds to the project. 
(e) TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRA-
TION.—
(1) STATE FUNDS.—At the request of a border State, funds 
apportioned to the State under this section may be transferred 
to the General Services Administration for the purpose of 
funding one or more projects described in subsection (b) if—
(A) the Secretary determines, after consultation with 
the transportation department of the border State, that 
the General Services Administration should carry out the 
project; and 
(B) the General Services Administration agrees to 
accept the transfer of, and to administer, those funds in 
accordance with this section. 
(2) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—A border State that makes a request 
under paragraph (1) shall provide directly to the General 
Services Administration, for each project covered by the 
request, the non-Federal share of the cost of the project.
H. R. 3—66
(B) NO
AUGMENTATION
OF
APPROPRIATIONS.—Funds 
provided by a border State under subparagraph (A)—
(i) shall not be considered to be an augmentation 
of the appropriations made available to the General 
Services Administration; and 
(ii) shall be—
(I) administered, subject to paragraph (1)(B), 
in accordance with the procedures of the General 
Services Administration; but 
(II) available for obligation in the same 
manner as if the funds were apportioned under 
chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code. 
(3) OBLIGATION AUTHORITY.—Obligation authority shall be 
transferred to the General Services Administration for a project 
in the same manner and amount as the funds provided for 
the project under paragraph (1). 
(4) LIMITATION ON TRANSFER OF FUNDS.—No State may 
transfer to the General Services Administration under this 
subsection an amount that is more than the lesser of—
(A) 15 percent of the aggregate amount of funds appor-
tioned to the State under this section for such fiscal year; 
or 
(B) $5,000,000. 
(f) APPLICABILITY OF TITLE 23.—Funds made available to carry 
out this section shall be available for obligation in the same manner 
as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, 
United States Code; except that, subject to subsection (e), such 
funds shall not be transferable and shall remain available until 
expended, and the Federal share of the cost of a project under 
this section shall be determined in accordance with section 120 
of such title. 
(g) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions 
apply: 
(1) BORDER REGION.—The term ‘‘border region’’ means any 
portion of a border State within 100 miles of an international 
land border with Canada or Mexico. 
(2) BORDER STATE.—The term ‘‘border State’’ means any 
State that has an international land border with Canada or 
Mexico. 
(3) COMMERCIAL
TRUCK.—The term ‘‘commercial truck’’ 
means a commercial motor vehicle as defined in section 
31301(4) (other than subparagraph (B)) of title 49, United 
States Code. 
(4) MOTOR VEHICLE.—The term ‘‘motor vehicle’’ has the 
meaning such term has under section 101(a) of title 23, United 
States Code. 
(5) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ has the meaning such term 
has in section 101(a) of such title 23. 
SEC. 1304. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON THE NATIONAL HIGHWAY 
SYSTEM. 
(a) EVACUATION ROUTES.—Section 1105(b) of the Intermodal 
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102–
240; 105 Stat. 2032) is amended in the first sentence by inserting 
‘‘and evacuation routes’’ after ‘‘corridors’’ the first place it appears. 
(b) CORRIDORS.—Section 1105(c) of the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2032) is amended—
H. R. 3—67
(1) by striking paragraph (14) and inserting the following: 
‘‘(14) Heartland Expressway from Denver, Colorado, 
through Scottsbluff, Nebraska, to Rapid City, South Dakota 
as follows: 
‘‘(A) In the State of Colorado, the Heartland Express-
way Corridor shall generally follow—
‘‘(i) Interstate 76 from Denver to Brush; and 
‘‘(ii) Colorado Highway 71 from Limon to the 
border between the States of Colorado and Nebraska. 
‘‘(B) In the State of Nebraska, the Heartland Express-
way Corridor shall generally follow—
‘‘(i) Nebraska Highway 71 from the border between 
the States of Colorado and Nebraska to Scottsbluff; 
‘‘(ii) United States Route 26 from Scottsbluff to 
the intersection with State Highway L62A; 
‘‘(iii) State Highway L62A from the intersection 
with United States Route 26 to United States Route 
385 north of Bridgeport; 
‘‘(iv) United States Route 385 to the border 
between the States of Nebraska and South Dakota; 
and 
‘‘(v) United States Highway 26 from Scottsbluff 
to the border of the States of Nebraska and Wyoming. 
‘‘(C) In the State of Wyoming, the Heartland Express-
way Corridor shall generally follow United States Highway 
26 from the border of the States of Nebraska and Wyoming 
to the termination at Interstate 25 at Interchange number 
94. 
‘‘(D) In the State of South Dakota, the Heartland 
Expressway Corridor shall generally follow—
‘‘(i) United States Route 385 from the border 
between the States of Nebraska and South Dakota 
to the intersection with State Highway 79; and 
‘‘(ii) State Highway 79 from the intersection with 
United States Route 385 to Rapid City.’’; 
(2) in paragraph (23) by inserting before the period at 
the end the following: ‘‘and the connection from Wichita, 
Kansas, to Sioux City, Iowa, which includes I–135 from Wichita, 
Kansas to Salina, Kansas, United States Route 81 from Salina, 
Kansas, to Norfolk, Nebraska, Nebraska State Route 35 from 
Norfolk, Nebraska, to South Sioux City, Nebraska, and the 
connection to I–29 in Sioux City, Iowa’’; 
(3) in paragraph (33) by striking ‘‘I–395’’ and inserting 
‘‘and including the I–395 corridor’’; 
(4) by striking paragraph (34) and inserting the following: 
‘‘(34) The Alameda Corridor-East and Southwest Passage, 
California. The Alameda Corridor-East is generally described 
as the corridor from East Los Angeles (terminus of Alameda 
Corridor) through Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and 
Riverside Counties, to termini at Barstow in San Bernardino 
County and Coachella in Riverside County. The Southwest 
Passage shall follow I–10 from San Bernardino to the Arizona 
State line.’’; 
(5) by adding at the end the following: 
‘‘(46) Interstate Route 710 between the terminus at Long 
Beach, California, to California State Route 60.
H. R. 3—68
‘‘(47) Interstate Route 87 from the Quebec border to New 
York City. 
‘‘(48) The Route 50 High Plains Corridor along the United 
States Route 50 corridor from Newton, Kansas, to Pueblo, Colo-
rado. 
‘‘(49) The Atlantic Commerce Corridor on Interstate Route 
95 from Jacksonville, Florida, to Miami, Florida. 
‘‘(50) The East-West Corridor commencing in Watertown, 
New York, continuing northeast through New York, Vermont, 
New Hampshire, and Maine, and terminating in Calais, Maine. 
‘‘(51) The SPIRIT Corridor on United States Route 54 from 
El Paso, Texas, through New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma 
to Wichita, Kansas. 
‘‘(52) The route in Arkansas running south of and parallel 
to Arkansas State Highway 226 from the relocation of United 
States Route 67 to the vicinity of United States Route 49 
and United States Route 63. 
‘‘(53) United States Highway Route 6 from Interstate Route 
70 to Interstate Route 15, Utah. 
‘‘(54) The California Farm-to-Market Corridor, California 
State Route 99 from south of Bakersfield to Sacramento, Cali-
fornia. 
‘‘(55) In Texas, Interstate Route 20 from Interstate Route 
35E in Dallas County, east to the intersection of Interstate 
Route 635, north to the intersection of Interstate Route 30, 
northeast through Texarkana to Little Rock, Arkansas, Inter-
state Route 40 northeast from Little Rock east to the proposed 
Interstate Route 69 corridor. 
‘‘(56) In the State of Texas, the La Entrada al Pacifico 
Corridor consisting of the following highways and any portion 
of a highway in a corridor on 2 miles of either side of the 
center line of the highway: 
‘‘(A) State Route 349 from Lamesa to the point on 
that highway that is closest to 32 degrees, 7 minutes, 
north latitude, by 102 degrees, 6 minutes, west longitude. 
‘‘(B) The segment or any roadway extending from the 
point described by subparagraph (A) to the point on Farm-
to-Market Road 1788 closest to 32 degrees, 0 minutes, 
north latitude, by 102 degrees, 16 minutes, west longitude. 
‘‘(C) Farm-to-Market Road 1788 from the point 
described by subparagraph (B) to its intersection with 
Interstate Route 20. 
‘‘(D) Interstate Route 20 from its intersection with 
Farm-to-Market Road 1788 to its intersection with United 
States Route 385. 
‘‘(E) United States Route 385 from Odessa to Fort 
Stockton, including those portions that parallel United 
States Route 67 and Interstate Route 10. 
‘‘(F) United States Route 67 from Fort Stockton to 
Presidio, including those portions that parallel Interstate 
Route 10 and United States Route 90. 
‘‘(57) United States Route 41 corridor between Interstate 
Route 94 via Interstate Route 894 and Highway 45 near Mil-
waukee and Interstate Route 43 near Green Bay in the State 
of Wisconsin. 
‘‘(58) The Theodore Roosevelt Expressway from Rapid City, 
South Dakota, north on United States Route 85 to Williston,
H. R. 3—69
North Dakota, west on United States Route 2 to Culbertson, 
Montana, and north on Montana Highway 16 to the inter-
national border with Canada at the port of Raymond, Montana. 
‘‘(59) The Central North American Trade Corridor from 
the border between North Dakota and South Dakota, north 
on United States Route 83 through Bismark and Minot, North 
Dakota, to the international border with Canada. 
‘‘(60) The Providence Beltline Corridor beginning at Inter-
state Route 95 in the vicinity of Hope Valley, Rhode Island, 
traversing eastwardly intersecting and merging into Interstate 
Route 295, continuing northeastwardly along Interstate Route 
95, and terminating at the Massachusetts border, and including 
the western bypass of Providence, Rhode Island, from Interstate 
Route 295 to the Massachusetts border. 
‘‘(61) In the State of Missouri, the corridors consisting 
of the following highways: 
‘‘(A) Interstate Route 70, from Interstate Route 29/
35 to United States Route 61/Avenue of the Saints. 
‘‘(B) Interstate Route 72/United States Route 36, from 
the intersection with Interstate Route 29 to United States 
Route 61/Avenue of the Saints. 
‘‘(C) United States Route 67, from Interstate Route 
55 to the Arkansas State line. 
‘‘(D) United States Route 65, from United States Route 
36/Interstate Route 72 to the East-West TransAmerica cor-
ridor, at the Arkansas State line. 
‘‘(E) United States Route 63, from United States Route 
36 and the proposed Interstate Route 72 to the East-West 
TransAmerica corridor, at the Arkansas State line. 
‘‘(F) United States Route 54, from the Kansas State 
line to United States Route 61/Avenue of the Saints. 
‘‘(62) The Georgia Developmental Highway System Cor-
ridors identified in section 32–4–22 of the Official Code of 
Georgia, Annotated. 
‘‘(63) The Liberty Corridor, a corridor in an area encom-
passing very critical and significant transportation infrastruc-
ture providing regional, national, and international access 
through the State of New Jersey, including Interstate Routes 
95, 80, 287, and 78, and United States Routes 1, 3, 9, 17, 
and 46, and portways and connecting infrastructure. 
‘‘(64) The corridor in an area of passage in the State of 
New Jersey serving significant interstate and regional traffic, 
located near the cities of Camden, New Jersey, and Philadel-
phia, Pennsylvania, and including Interstate Route 295, United 
States Route 42, United States Route 130, and Interstate Route 
676. 
‘‘(65) The Interstate Route 95 Corridor beginning at the 
New York State line and continuing through Connecticut to 
the Rhode Island State line. 
‘‘(66) The Interstate Route 91 Corridor from New Haven, 
Connecticut, to the Massachusetts State line. 
‘‘(67) The Fairbanks-Yukon International Corridor con-
sisting of the portion of the Alaska Highway from the inter-
national border with Canada to the Richardson Highway, and 
the Richardson Highway from its junction with the Alaska 
Highway to Fairbanks, Alaska.
H. R. 3—70
‘‘(68) The Washoe County corridor, along Interstate Route 
580/United States Route 95/United States Route 95A, from 
Reno, Nevada, to Las Vegas, Nevada. 
‘‘(69) The Cross Valley Connector connecting Interstate 
Route 5 and State Route 14, Santa Clarita Valley, California. 
‘‘(70) The Economic Lifeline corridor, along Interstate Route 
15 and Interstate Route 40, California, Arizona, and Nevada, 
including Interstate Route 215 South from near San Bernadino, 
California, to Riverside, California, and State Route 91 from 
Riverside, California, to the intersection with Interstate Route 
15 near Corona, California. 
‘‘(71) The High Desert Corridor/E–220 from Los Angeles, 
California, to Las Vegas, Nevada, via Palmdale and Victorville, 
California. 
‘‘(72) The North-South corridor, along Interstate Route 49 
North, from Kansas City, Missouri, to Shreveport, Louisiana. 
‘‘(73) The Louisiana Highway corridor, along Louisiana 
Highway 1, from Grand Isle, Louisiana, to the intersection 
with United States Route 90. 
‘‘(74) The portion of United States Route 90 from Interstate 
Route 49 in Lafayette, Louisiana, to Interstate Route 10 in 
New Orleans, Louisiana. 
‘‘(75) The Louisiana 28 corridor from Fort Polk to Alexan-
dria, Louisiana. 
‘‘(76) The portion of Interstate Route 75 from Toledo, Ohio, 
to Cincinnati, Ohio. 
‘‘(77) The portion of United States Route 24 from the 
Indiana/Ohio State line to Toledo, Ohio. 
‘‘(78) The portion of Interstate Route 71 from Cincinnati, 
Ohio, to Cleveland, Ohio. 
‘‘(79) Interstate Route 376 from the Pittsburgh Interchange 
(I/C No. 56) of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, westward on Inter-
state Route 279, United States Route 22, United States Route 
30, and Pennsylvania Route 60, continuing past the Pittsburgh 
International Airport on Turnpike Route 60, to the Pennsyl-
vania Turnpike (Interstate Route 76), Interchange 10, and con-
tinuing north on Pennsylvania Turnpike Route 60 and on 
United States Route 422 to Interstate Route 80. 
‘‘(80) 
The 
Intercounty 
Connector, 
a 
new 
east-west 
multimodal highway between Interstate Route 270 and Inter-
state Route 95/United States Route 1 in Montgomery and Prince 
George’s Counties, Maryland.’’; and 
(6) by aligning paragraph (45) with paragraph (46) (as 
added by paragraph (5)). 
(c) INTERSTATE ROUTES.—Section 1105(e)(5) of the Intermodal 
Surface Transporation Efficiency Act of 1991 is amended—
(1) in subparagraph (A) by striking ‘‘and subsection (c)(45)’’ 
and inserting ‘‘subsection (c)(45), subsection (c)(54), and sub-
section (c)(57)’’; 
(2) by redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (D) as sub-
paragraphs (C) through (E); and 
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following: 
‘‘(B) INTERSTATE ROUTE 376.—
‘‘(i) DESIGNATION OF INTERSTATE ROUTE 376.—
‘‘(I) IN GENERAL.—The routes referred to in 
subsection (c)(79), except the portion of Pennsyl-
vania Turnpike Route 60 and United States Route
H. R. 3—71
422 between Pennsylvania Turnpike Interchange 
10 and Interstate Route 80, shall be designated 
as Interstate Route 376. 
‘‘(II) SIGNS.—The State of Pennsylvania shall 
have jurisdiction over the highways described in 
subclause (I) (except Pennsylvania Turnpike Route 
60) and erect signs in accordance with Interstate 
signing criteria that identify the routes described 
in subclause (I) as Interstate Route 376. 
‘‘(III) ASSISTANCE FROM SECRETARY.—The Sec-
retary shall assist the State of Pennsylvania in 
carrying out, not later than December 31, 2008, 
an activity under subclause (II) relating to Inter-
state Route 376 and in complying with sections 
109 and 139 of title 23, United States Code. 
‘‘(ii) OTHER SEGMENTS.—The segment of the route 
referred to in subsection (c)(79) located between the 
Pennsylvania Turnpike, Interchange 10, and Interstate 
Route 80 may be signed as Interstate Route 376 under 
clause (i)(II) if that segment meets the criteria under 
sections 109 and 139 of title 23, United States Code.’’. 
(d) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—There are authorized 
to be appropriated to carry out, in accordance with title 23, United 
States Code, projects on corridors identified in section 1105(c) of 
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 
Stat. 2032) such sums as may be necessary. 
SEC. 1305. TRUCK PARKING FACILITIES. 
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—In cooperation with appropriate State, 
regional, and local governments, the Secretary shall establish a 
pilot program to address the shortage of long-term parking for 
commercial motor vehicles on the National Highway System. 
(b) ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall allocate funds made 
available to carry out this section among States, metropolitan 
planning organizations, and local governments. 
(2) APPLICATIONS.—To be eligible for an allocation under 
this section, a State (as defined in section 101(a) of title 23, 
United States Code), metropolitan planning organization, or 
local government shall submit to the Secretary an application 
at such time and containing such information as the Secretary 
may require. 
(3) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.—Funds allocated under this sub-
section shall be used by the recipient for projects described 
in an application approved by the Secretary. Such projects 
shall serve the National Highway System and may include 
the following: 
(A) Constructing safety rest areas (as defined in section 
120(c) of title 23, United States Code) that include parking 
for commercial motor vehicles. 
(B) Constructing commercial motor vehicle parking 
facilities adjacent to commercial truck stops and travel 
plazas. 
(C) Opening existing facilities to commercial motor 
vehicle parking, including inspection and weigh stations 
and park-and-ride facilities.
H. R. 3—72
(D) Promoting the availability of publicly or privately 
provided commercial motor vehicle parking on the National 
Highway System using intelligent transportation systems 
and other means. 
(E) Constructing turnouts along the National Highway 
System for commercial motor vehicles. 
(F) Making capital improvements to public commercial 
motor vehicle parking facilities currently closed on a sea-
sonal basis to allow the facilities to remain open year-
round. 
(G) Improving the geometric design of interchanges 
on the National Highway System to improve access to 
commercial motor vehicle parking facilities. 
(4) PRIORITY.—In allocating funds made available to carry 
out this section, the Secretary shall give priority to applicants 
that—
(A) demonstrate a severe shortage of commercial motor 
vehicle parking capacity in the corridor to be addressed; 
(B) have consulted with affected State and local govern-
ments, community groups, private providers of commercial 
motor vehicle parking, and motorist and trucking organiza-
tions; and 
(C) demonstrate that their proposed projects are likely 
to have positive effects on highway safety, traffic conges-
tion, or air quality. 
(c) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 3 years after the 
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
a report on the results of the pilot program. 
(d) FUNDING.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated 
from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit 
Account) to carry out this section $6,250,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2006 through 2009. 
(2) CONTRACT AUTHORITY.—Funds authorized under this 
subsection shall be available for obligation in the same manner 
as if the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, 
United States Code; except that such funds shall not be 
transferable and shall remain available until expended, and 
the Federal share of the cost of a project under this section 
shall be determined in accordance with sections 120(b) and 
120(c) of such title. 
(e) TREATMENT
OF
PROJECTS.—Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, projects funded under this section shall be treated 
as projects on a Federal-aid system under chapter 1 of title 23, 
United States Code. 
SEC. 1306. FREIGHT INTERMODAL DISTRIBUTION PILOT GRANT PRO-
GRAM. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish and implement 
a freight intermodal distribution pilot grant program. 
(b) PURPOSES.—The purposes of the program established under 
subsection (a) shall be for the Secretary to make grants to States—
(1) to facilitate and support intermodal freight transpor-
tation initiatives at the State and local levels to relieve conges-
tion and improve safety; and
H. R. 3—73
(2) to provide capital funding to address infrastructure 
and freight distribution needs at inland ports and intermodal 
freight facilities. 
(c) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.—Projects for which grants may be made 
under this section shall help relieve congestion, improve transpor-
tation safety, facilitate international trade, and encourage public-
private partnership and may include projects for the development 
and construction of intermodal freight distribution and transfer 
facilities at inland ports. 
(d) SELECTION PROCESS.—
(1) APPLICATIONS.—A State (as defined in section 101(a) 
of title 23, United States Code) shall submit for approval by 
the Secretary an application for a grant under this section 
containing such information as the Secretary may require to 
receive such a grant. 
(2) PRIORITY.—In selecting projects for grants, the Sec-
retary shall give priority to projects that will—
(A) reduce congestion into and out of international 
ports located in the United States; 
(B) demonstrate ways to increase the likelihood that 
freight container movements involve freight containers car-
rying goods; and 
(C) establish or expand intermodal facilities that 
encourage the development of inland freight distribution 
centers. 
(3) DESIGNATED
PROJECTS.—Subject to the provisions of 
this section, the Secretary shall allocate for each of fiscal years 
2005 through 2009, from funds made available to carry out 
this section, 20 percent of the following amounts for grants 
to carry out the following projects under this section: 
(A) Short-haul intermodal projects, Oregon, $5,000,000. 
(B) The Georgia Port Authority, $5,000,000. 
(C) The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, Cali-
fornia, $5,000,000. 
(D) Fairbanks, Alaska, $5,000,000. 
(E) Charlotte Douglas International Airport Freight 
Intermodal Facility, North Carolina, $5,000,000. 
(F) South Piedmont Freight Intermodal Center, North 
Carolina, $5,000,000. 
(e) USE OF GRANT FUNDS.—Funds made available to a recipient 
of a grant under this section shall be used by the recipient for 
the project described in the application of the recipient approved 
by the Secretary. 
(f) REPORT.—Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on 
the results of the pilot program carried out under this section. 
(g) FUNDING.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated 
from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit 
Account) to carry out this section $6,000,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2005 through 2009. 
(2) CONTRACT AUTHORITY.—Funds authorized by this sub-
section shall be available for obligation in the same manner 
as if the funds were apportioned under chapter 1 of title 23, 
United States Code; except that such funds shall not be 
transferable and shall remain available until expended, and 
the Federal share of the cost of a project under this section
H. R. 3—74
shall be determined in accordance with section 120 of such 
title. 
(h) TREATMENT
OF
PROJECTS.—Notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, projects for which grants are made under this 
section shall be treated as projects on a Federal-aid system under 
chapter 1 of title 23, United States Code. 
SEC. 1307. DEPLOYMENT OF MAGNETIC LEVITATION TRANSPOR-
TATION PROJECTS. 
(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions 
apply: 
(1) ELIGIBLE PROJECT COSTS.—The term ‘‘eligible project 
costs’’—
(A) means the capital cost of the fixed guideway infra-
structure of a MAGLEV project, including land, piers, 
guideways, propulsion equipment and other components 
attached 
to 
guideways, 
power 
distribution 
facilities 
(including substations), control and communications facili-
ties, access roads, and storage, repair, and maintenance 
facilities, but not including costs incurred for a new station; 
and 
(B) includes the costs of preconstruction planning 
activities. 
(2) FULL
PROJECT
COSTS.—The term ‘‘full project costs’’ 
means the total capital costs of a MAGLEV project, including 
eligible project costs and the costs of stations, vehicles, and 
equipment. 
(3) MAGLEV.—The term ‘‘MAGLEV’’ means transportation 
systems employing magnetic levitation that would be capable 
of safe use by the public at a speed in excess of 240 miles 
per hour. 
(4) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ has the meaning such term 
has under section 101(a) of title 23, United States Code. 
(b) IN GENERAL.—
(1) ASSISTANCE
FOR
ELIGIBLE
PROJECTS.—The Secretary 
shall make available financial assistance to pay the Federal 
share of full project costs of eligible projects authorized by 
this section. 
(2) USE
OF
ASSISTANCE.—Financial assistance provided 
under paragraph (1) shall be used only to pay eligible project 
costs of projects authorized by this section. 
(3) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER LAWS.—Financial assistance 
made available under this section, and projects assisted with 
such assistance, shall be subject to section 5333(a) of title 
49, United States Code. 
(c) PROJECT ELIGIBILITY.—To be eligible to receive financial 
assistance under subsection (b), a project shall—
(1) involve a segment or segments of a high-speed ground 
transportation corridor; 
(2) result in an operating transportation facility that pro-
vides a revenue producing service; and 
(3) be approved by the Secretary based on an application 
submitted to the Secretary by a State or authority designated 
by one or more States. 
(d) ALLOCATION.—Of the amounts made available to carry out 
this section for a fiscal year, the Secretary shall allocate 50 percent 
for the MAGLEV project between Las Vegas and Primm, Nevada,
H. R. 3—75
and 50 percent for a MAGLEV project located east of the Mississippi 
River. 
SEC. 1308. DELTA REGION TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT PRO-
GRAM. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out a program 
in the 8 States comprising the Delta Region (Alabama, Arkansas, 
Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee) 
to—
(1) support and encourage multistate transportation plan-
ning and corridor development; 
(2) provide for transportation project development; 
(3) facilitate transportation decisionmaking; and 
(4) support transportation construction. 
(b) ELIGIBLE RECIPIENTS.—A State transportation department 
or metropolitan planning organization in a Delta Region State 
may receive and administer funds provided under the program. 
(c) ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES.—The Secretary shall make allocations 
under the program for multistate highway planning, development, 
and construction projects. 
(d) OTHER PROVISIONS REGARDING ELIGIBILITY.—All activities 
funded under this program shall be consistent with the continuing, 
cooperative, and comprehensive planning processes required by sec-
tions 134 and 135 of title 23, United States Code. 
(e) SELECTION CRITERIA.—The Secretary shall select projects 
to be carried out under the program based on—
(1) whether the project is located—
(A) in an area under the authority of the Delta Regional 
Authority; and 
(B) on a Federal-aid highway; 
(2) endorsement of the project by the State department 
of transportation; and 
(3) evidence of the ability of the recipient of funds provided 
under the program to complete the project. 
(f) PROGRAM PRIORITIES.—In administering the program, the 
Secretary shall—
(1) encourage State and local officials to work together 
to develop plans for multimodal and multijurisdictional 
transportation decisionmaking; and 
(2) give priority to projects that emphasize multimodal 
planning, including planning for operational improvements 
that—
(A) increase the mobility of people and goods; 
(B) improve the safety of the transportation system 
with respect to catastrophic natural disasters or disasters 
caused by human activity; and 
(C) contribute to the economic vitality of the area in 
which the project is being carried out. 
(g) FEDERAL SHARE.—Amounts provided by the Delta Regional 
Authority to carry out a project under this subsection may be 
applied to the non-Federal share of the project required by section 
120 of title 23, United States Code. 
(h) FUNDING.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—There is authorized to be appropriated 
from the Highway Trust Fund (other than the Mass Transit 
Account) to carry out this section $10,000,000 for each of fiscal 
years 2006 through 2009.
H. R. 3—76
(2) CONTRACT AUTHORITY.—Funds made available to carry 
out this section shall be available for obligation in the same 
manner as if such funds were apportioned under chapter 1 
of title 23, United States Code; except that such funds shall 
not be transferable and shall remain available until expended. 
SEC. 1309. EXTENSION OF PUBLIC TRANSIT VEHICLE EXEMPTION 
FROM AXLE WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS. 
Section 1023(h)(1) of the Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act of 1991 (23 U.S.C. 127 note; 106 Stat. 1552) is 
amended by striking ‘‘2005’’ and inserting ‘‘2009’’. 
SEC. 1310. INTERSTATE OASIS PROGRAM. 
(a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this section, in consultation with the States and 
other interested parties, the Secretary shall—
(1) establish an interstate oasis program; and 
(2) after providing an opportunity for public comment, 
develop standards for designating, as an interstate oasis, a 
facility that—
(A) offers—
(i) products and services to the public; 
(ii) 24-hour access to restrooms; and 
(iii) parking for automobiles and heavy trucks; and 
(B) meets other standards established by the Secretary. 
(b) STANDARDS FOR DESIGNATION.—The standards for designa-
tion under subsection (a) shall include standards relating to—
(1) the appearance of a facility; and 
(2) the proximity of the facility to the Dwight D. Eisenhower 
National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. 
(c) ELIGIBILITY FOR DESIGNATION.—If a State (as defined in 
section 101(a) of title 23, United States Code) elects to participate 
in the interstate oasis program, any facility meeting the standards 
established by the Secretary shall be eligible for designation under 
this section. 
(d) LOGO.—The Secretary shall design a logo to be displayed 
by a facility designated under this section.
Subtitle D—Highway Safety 
SEC. 1401. HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. 
(a) SAFETY IMPROVEMENT.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 148 of title 23, United States 
Code, is amended to read as follows: 
‘‘§ 148. Highway safety improvement program 
‘‘(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section, the following definitions 
apply: 
‘‘(1) HIGH RISK RURAL ROAD.—The term ‘high risk rural 
road’ means any roadway functionally classified as a rural 
major or minor collector or a rural local road—
‘‘(A) on which the accident rate for fatalities and 
incapacitating injuries exceeds the statewide average for 
those functional classes of roadway; or 
‘‘(B) that will likely have increases in traffic volume 
that are likely to create an accident rate for fatalities
H. R. 3—77
and incapacitating injuries that exceeds the statewide aver-
age for those functional classes of roadway. 
‘‘(2) HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.—The term 
‘highway safety improvement program’ means the program car-
ried out under this section. 
‘‘(3) HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘highway safety improve-
ment project’ means a project described in the State stra-
tegic highway safety plan that—
‘‘(i) corrects or improves a hazardous road location 
or feature; or 
‘‘(ii) addresses a highway safety problem. 
‘‘(B) INCLUSIONS.—The term ‘highway safety improve-
ment project’ includes a project for one or more of the 
following: 
‘‘(i) An intersection safety improvement. 
‘‘(ii) Pavement and shoulder widening (including 
addition of a passing lane to remedy an unsafe condi-
tion). 
‘‘(iii) Installation of rumble strips or another 
warning device, if the rumble strips or other warning 
devices do not adversely affect the safety or mobility 
of bicyclists, pedestrians, and the disabled. 
‘‘(iv) Installation of a skid-resistant surface at an 
intersection or other location with a high frequency 
of accidents. 
‘‘(v) An improvement for pedestrian or bicyclist 
safety or safety of the disabled. 
‘‘(vi) Construction of any project for the elimination 
of hazards at a railway-highway crossing that is 
eligible for funding under section 130, including the 
separation or protection of grades at railway-highway 
crossings. 
‘‘(vii) Construction of a railway-highway crossing 
safety feature, including installation of protective 
devices. 
‘‘(viii) The conduct of a model traffic enforcement 
activity at a railway-highway crossing. 
‘‘(ix) Construction of a traffic calming feature. 
‘‘(x) Elimination of a roadside obstacle. 
‘‘(xi) Improvement of highway signage and pave-
ment markings. 
‘‘(xii) Installation of a priority control system for 
emergency vehicles at signalized intersections. 
‘‘(xiii) Installation of a traffic control or other 
warning device at a location with high accident poten-
tial. 
‘‘(xiv) Safety-conscious planning. 
‘‘(xv) Improvement in the collection and analysis 
of crash data. 
‘‘(xvi) Planning integrated interoperable emergency 
communications equipment, operational activities, or 
traffic enforcement activities (including police assist-
ance) relating to workzone safety. 
‘‘(xvii) 
Installation 
of 
guardrails, 
barriers 
(including barriers between construction work zones
H. R. 3—78
and traffic lanes for the safety of motorists and 
workers), and crash attenuators. 
‘‘(xviii) The addition or retrofitting of structures 
or other measures to eliminate or reduce accidents 
involving vehicles and wildlife. 
‘‘(xix) Installation and maintenance of signs 
(including fluorescent, yellow-green signs) at pedes-
trian-bicycle crossings and in school zones. 
‘‘(xx) Construction and yellow-green signs at pedes-
trian-bicycle crossings and in school zones. 
‘‘(xxi) Construction and operational improvements 
on high risk rural roads. 
‘‘(4) SAFETY PROJECT UNDER ANY OTHER SECTION.—
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘safety project under any 
other section’ means a project carried out for the purpose 
of safety under any other section of this title. 
‘‘(B) INCLUSION.—The term ‘safety project under any 
other section’ includes a project to promote the awareness 
of the public and educate the public concerning highway 
safety matters (including motorcyclist safety) and a project 
to enforce highway safety laws. 
‘‘(5) STATE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.—The 
term ‘State highway safety improvement program’ means 
projects or strategies included in the State strategic highway 
safety plan carried out as part of the State transportation 
improvement program under section 135(g). 
‘‘(6) STATE STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN.—The term 
‘State strategic highway safety plan’ means a plan developed 
by the State transportation department that—
‘‘(A) is developed after consultation with—
‘‘(i) a highway safety representative of the Gov-
ernor of the State; 
‘‘(ii) regional transportation planning organizations 
and metropolitan planning organizations, if any; 
‘‘(iii) representatives of major modes of transpor-
tation; 
‘‘(iv) State and local traffic enforcement officials; 
‘‘(v) persons responsible for administering section 
130 at the State level; 
‘‘(vi) representatives conducting Operation Life-
saver; 
‘‘(vii) representatives conducting a motor carrier 
safety program under section 31102, 31106, or 31309 
of title 49; 
‘‘(viii) motor vehicle administration agencies; and 
‘‘(ix) other major State and local safety stake-
holders; 
‘‘(B) analyzes and makes effective use of State, regional, 
or local crash data; 
‘‘(C) addresses engineering, management, operation, 
education, enforcement, and emergency services elements 
(including integrated, interoperable emergency communica-
tions) of highway safety as key factors in evaluating high-
way projects; 
‘‘(D) considers safety needs of, and high-fatality seg-
ments of, public roads;
H. R. 3—79
‘‘(E) considers the results of State, regional, or local 
transportation and highway safety planning processes; 
‘‘(F) describes a program of projects or strategies to 
reduce or eliminate safety hazards; 
‘‘(G) is approved by the Governor of the State or a 
responsible State agency; and 
‘‘(H) is consistent with the requirements of section 
135(g). 
‘‘(b) PROGRAM.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall carry out a highway 
safety improvement program. 
‘‘(2) PURPOSE.—The purpose of the highway safety improve-
ment program shall be to achieve a significant reduction in 
traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. 
‘‘(c) ELIGIBILITY.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—To obligate funds apportioned under sec-
tion 104(b)(5) to carry out this section, a State shall have 
in effect a State highway safety improvement program under 
which the State—
‘‘(A) develops and implements a State strategic high-
way safety plan that identifies and analyzes highway safety 
problems and opportunities as provided in paragraph (2); 
‘‘(B) produces a program of projects or strategies to 
reduce identified safety problems; 
‘‘(C) evaluates the plan on a regular basis to ensure 
the accuracy of the data and priority of proposed improve-
ments; and 
‘‘(D) submits to the Secretary an annual report that—
‘‘(i) describes, in a clearly understandable fashion, 
not less than 5 percent of locations determined by 
the State, using criteria established in accordance with 
paragraph (2)(B)(ii), as exhibiting the most severe 
safety needs; and 
‘‘(ii) contains an assessment of—
‘‘(I) potential remedies to hazardous locations 
identified; 
‘‘(II) estimated costs associated with those 
remedies; and 
‘‘(III) impediments to implementation other 
than cost associated with those remedies. 
‘‘(2) IDENTIFICATION
AND
ANALYSIS
OF
HIGHWAY
SAFETY 
PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES.—As part of the State strategic 
highway safety plan, a State shall—
‘‘(A) have in place a crash data system with the ability 
to perform safety problem identification and counter-
measure analysis; 
‘‘(B) based on the analysis required by subparagraph 
(A)—
‘‘(i) identify hazardous locations, sections, and ele-
ments (including roadside obstacles, railway-highway 
crossing needs, and unmarked or poorly marked roads) 
that constitute a danger to motorists (including motor-
cyclists), bicyclists, pedestrians, and other highway 
users; and 
‘‘(ii) using such criteria as the State determines 
to be appropriate, establish the relative severity of
H. R. 3—80
those locations, in terms of accidents, injuries, deaths, 
traffic volume levels, and other relevant data; 
‘‘(C) adopt strategic and performance-based goals 
that—
‘‘(i) address traffic safety, including behavioral and 
infrastructure problems and opportunities on all public 
roads; 
‘‘(ii) focus resources on areas of greatest need; and 
‘‘(iii) are coordinated with other State highway 
safety programs; 
‘‘(D) advance the capabilities of the State for traffic 
records data collection, analysis, and integration with other 
sources of safety data (such as road inventories) in a 
manner that—
‘‘(i) complements the State highway safety program 
under chapter 4 and the commercial vehicle safety 
plan under section 31102 of title 49; 
‘‘(ii) includes all public roads; 
‘‘(iii) identifies hazardous locations, sections, and 
elements on public roads that constitute a danger to 
motorists (including motorcyclists), bicyclists, pedes-
trians, the disabled, and other highway users; and 
‘‘(iv) includes a means of identifying the relative 
severity of hazardous locations described in clause (iii) 
in terms of accidents, injuries, deaths, and traffic 
volume levels; 
‘‘(E)(i) determine priorities for the correction of haz-
ardous road locations, sections, and elements (including 
railway-highway crossing improvements), as identified 
through crash data analysis; 
‘‘(ii) identify opportunities for preventing the develop-
ment of such hazardous conditions; and 
‘‘(iii) establish and implement a schedule of highway 
safety improvement projects for hazard correction and 
hazard prevention; and 
‘‘(F)(i) establish an evaluation process to analyze and 
assess results achieved by highway safety improvement 
projects carried out in accordance with procedures and 
criteria established by this section; and 
‘‘(ii) use the information obtained under clause (i) in 
setting priorities for highway safety improvement projects. 
‘‘(d) ELIGIBLE PROJECTS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A State may obligate funds apportioned 
to the State under section 104(b)(5) to carry out—
‘‘(A) any highway safety improvement project on any 
public road or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway 
or trail; or 
‘‘(B) as provided in subsection (e), other safety projects. 
‘‘(2) USE OF OTHER FUNDING FOR SAFETY.—
‘‘(A) EFFECT OF SECTION.—Nothing in this section pro-
hibits the use of funds made available under other provi-
sions of this title for highway safety improvement projects. 
‘‘(B) USE OF OTHER FUNDS.—States are encouraged to 
address the full scope of their safety needs and opportuni-
ties by using funds made available under other provisions 
of this title (except a provision that specifically prohibits 
that use).
H. R. 3—81
‘‘(e) FLEXIBLE FUNDING FOR STATES WITH A STRATEGIC HIGH-
WAY SAFETY PLAN.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—To further the implementation of a State 
strategic highway safety plan, a State may use up to 10 percent 
of the amount of funds apportioned to the State under section 
104(b)(5) for a fiscal year to carry out safety projects under 
any other section as provided in the State strategic highway 
safety plan if the State certifies that—
‘‘(A) the State has met needs in the State relating 
to railway-highway crossings; and 
‘‘(B) the State has met the State’s infrastructure safety 
needs relating to highway safety improvement projects. 
‘‘(2) OTHER TRANSPORTATION AND HIGHWAY SAFETY PLANS.—
Nothing in this subsection requires a State to revise any State 
process, plan, or program in effect on the date of enactment 
of this section. 
‘‘(f) HIGH RISK RURAL ROADS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—After making an apportionment under 
section 104(b)(5) for a fiscal year beginning after September 
30, 2005, the Secretary shall ensure, from amounts made avail-
able to carry out this section for such fiscal year, that a total 
of $90,000,000 of such apportionment is set aside by the States, 
proportionally according to the share of each State of the total 
amount so apportioned, for use only for construction and oper-
ational improvements on high risk rural roads. 
‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULE.—A State may use funds apportioned 
to the State pursuant to this subsection for any project under 
this section if the State certifies to the Secretary that the 
State has met all of State needs for construction and operational 
improvements on high risk rural roads. 
‘‘(g) REPORTS.—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A State shall submit to the Secretary 
a report that—
‘‘(A) describes progress being made to implement high-
way safety improvement projects under this section; 
‘‘(B) assesses the effectiveness of those improvements; 
and 
‘‘(C) describes the extent to which the improvements 
funded under this section contribute to the goals of—
‘‘(i) reducing the number of fatalities on roadways; 
‘‘(ii) reducing the number of roadway-related 
injuries; 
‘‘(iii) reducing the occurrences of roadway-related 
crashes; 
‘‘(iv) mitigating the consequences of roadway-
related crashes; and 
‘‘(v) reducing the occurrences of crashes at railway-
highway crossings. 
‘‘(2) CONTENTS; SCHEDULE.—The Secretary shall establish 
the content and schedule for a report under paragraph (1). 
‘‘(3) TRANSPARENCY.—The Secretary shall make reports 
submitted under subsection (c)(1)(D) available to the public 
through—
‘‘(A) the Web site of the Department; and 
‘‘(B) such other means as the Secretary determines 
to be appropriate.